Case Study Discussion

Case Study Discussion

Case Study Discussion

Purpose: To assess ability to appraise statistical evidence and use quantitative reasoning to examine clinical problems in evidence based practice. (Objectives 1 – 3).

Due date: Post by Wednesday of Week 8. Discuss through SATURDAY of Week 8.

Submit: Discussion Board in Blackboard

[elementor-template id="165244"]

This assignment is an opportunity for students to collaborate with classmates and instructors in appraising statistical evidence. The goal of the assignment is to allow students to demonstrate their ability to use the CER approach to appraise statistical evidence presented in a journal article.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Case Study Discussion HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Before beginning the assignment, students should refresh their recollection of the Cohn et al. (2009) article (posted in Week 4 in Blackboard). Students will investigate claims made in the Chun et al. (2014) article on hand hygiene among ICU nurses.

The assignment has four steps.

1. Read the
2. Choose one of the following claims (only one).
   1. Claim #1 by Chun et al (2014) is: “Hand hygiene education and individual feedback of hand hygiene frequency and method were effective in increasing hand hygiene frequency and improving nurses’ methodology scores of hand hygiene” (Chun et , 2014).
   2. Claim #2 by Chun et al (2014) is that the intervention” was proven to decrease MRSA acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure” (Chun et , 2014).
3. Write a post for the discussion board in the following format (and post it by Wednesday of Week 8). The post should be 100 to 300 words in
   1. State the claim
   2. List the statistical evidence provided in the article to support the claim
   3. Explain why the evidence supports or fails to support the claim and critically appraise the article and claim using Cohen et (2009).
4. Engage in the discussion board to read and comment on classmates’ and instructors’
   1. Students must engage with the topic; e., comments need to present differing perspectives and alternative explanations.
   2. Students must engage in conversation; i.e., when Student B comments on Student A’s post, then Student A should respond to Student B’s comment.
   3. Students must be collegial and collaborative in their posts and conversations.

Updated 8/1/2017

Case Study Discussion will be graded with the following rubric:

	Exemplary 4	Proficient 3	Developing 2	Emerging 1
Original post (3.75)	Fully responds to all questions	Responds to all	Does not respond	Does not respond
	in DB Prompt with insightful	questions, but lacks	to all questions	to all questions.
	appraisal of evidence using	development (AND)	(OR) Response	(AND) Response
	appropriate support	Clear statement of	not in appropriate	not in appropriate
		evidence and	format	format (AND)
		conclusion (OR)	(AND/OR) Does	Does not use
		Does not use	not use	appropriate support
		appropriate support	appropriate
			support)
Original post (3.75)	Fully responds to all questions	Responds to all	Does not respond	Does not respond
	in DB Prompt with insightful	questions, but lacks	to all questions	to all questions.
	appraisal of evidence	development (AND)	(OR) Response	(AND) Response
		Clear statement of	not in appropriate	not in appropriate
		evidence and	format.	format.
		conclusion
Timeliness of original posts (1.25)	Initial post by Wednesday of the assigned week.	Initial post by Thursday of the assigned week	Initial post by Friday of the assigned week	Initial post after Friday of the assigned week.
Comments on	Provides relevant and helpful	Provides relevant	Responses lack	Poor response
Others’ Posts (3.75)	feedback with insightful, clear,	and helpful feedback	substance and	quality
	and thorough use of CER	with use of CER	attempt to use
	approach in discussions with	approach in	CER approach in
	classmates.	discussions with	discussions with
		classmates.	classmates.
Engagement	Responses to at least three	Responds to fewer	Responds to two	Responds to one
(1.25)	classmates (AND) Responses	than three classmates	classmates on	classmate on one
	spread over more than two days	(OR) Responses on	two days (OR) all	day (OR) does not
		two days.	responses on one	respond to
			day	classmates.
Format	Writing is graduate level and	Writing is graduate	Writing may not	Poor writing
(2.5)	engaging. (AND) Written	level and engaging.	be graduate level.	quality, poor
	responses communicate clearly	(AND) Written	(OR) Written	communication and
	using appropriate professional	responses may not	responses do not	unprofessional
	tone, grammar, spelling, and	communicate clearly,	communicate	tone. (OR)
	punctuation.	use appropriate	clearly, use	Extensive errors in
		professional tone, or	appropriate	spelling, grammar,
		there may be a few	professional tone,	or punctuation that
		errors grammar,	or there are	detract from the
		spelling, and	several errors	readability.
		punctuation without	grammar,
		detracting from	spelling, and
		readability.	punctuation,
			detracting from
			overall
			readability.

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

Case Study Discussion 2

Claim #2 by Chun et al. (2014) is that the intervention” was proven to decrease MRSA acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure” (Chun et al., 2014). The study sought to increase nurses’ frequency and degree of thoroughness of hand hygiene practice and evaluate the impact of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) acquired prevalence rate and the MRSA colonization pressure in a medical intensive care unit (MICU). The study intervention was to provide nurses with hand hygiene education and individual feedback on hand hygiene frequency. The study’s findings support the claim since they reveal that the MRSA acquisition rate markedly reduced, from 11.1% before the intervention to 0% after the hand hygiene education (Chun et al., 2014). In addition, the findings show that the MRSA colonization pressure reduced considerably from 39.5% to 8.6% after the intervention.

           The evidence supports the claim since the MRSA acquisition rate was initially 11.1% and decreased to 2.7% after the first post-education evaluation and 0% after the second evaluation. Besides, the MRSA colonization pressure before the hand hygiene education intervention was 39.5% but decreased to 28.8% after the first post-education assessment and 8.6% in the second post-session (Chun et al., 2014). The evidence clearly shows the impact of the intervention in the first and second post-education evaluations, which proves that the intervention was gradually effective. In addition, the evidence establishes that the intervention (Hand hygiene education and providing individual feedback on hand hygiene frequency) effectively reduced the MRSA acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure. This strongly supports the claim that the intervention was established to reduce the MRSA acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure.

References

Chun, H. K., Kim, K. M., & Park, H. R. (2014). Effects of hand hygiene education and individual feedback on hand hygiene behaviour, MRSA acquisition rate and MRSA colonization pressure among intensive care unit nurses. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 21(6), 709-715.

[elementor-template id="165244"]