This is my capstone paper. It is connected to the previous paper/order. I need 30 articles for the appendix but not all articles need to be used for in the body of the paper. I will send instructions.
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introduction
Problem Statement
Background of the Problem
Description of the Practice Change, Quality Improvement, or Innovation
Rationale for the Practice Change, Quality Improvement, or Innovation
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Credible Sources
Best Practices
Evidence Summary
Subheading (usually required).
Subheading (usually required).
Subheading (usually required).
Recommended Practice Change, Quality Improvement, or Innovation
Chapter 3: Implementation
Capstone Project Implementation
Changes to Original Implementation Plan
Barriers Associated with Capstone Project
Overcoming barriers.
Transprofessional Relationships
How Relationships Facilitated Implementation
Chapter 4: Post-Capstone Project Considerations
Successful aspects.
Successful aspects: Future projects.
Aspects that Did Not Go Well.
Aspects that did not go well: Future projects.
Evidence and Current Practice
Post-Implementation
Post-Implementation Resources
Chapter 5: Reflection
Integration of MSN Program Outcomes
Subheading (usually required).
Subheading (usually required).
References
Appendix A
Credible Sources
| Author(s)
(Formatted as in-text citation) |
Database
(CINAHL, EBSCO, Cochrane, Pro-Quest) |
Peer-Reviewed (Yes/No) | Applicability
(Yes/No) |
Evidence Grade (Strength/ Hierarchy) | Appraisal
(Brief summary of findings; how findings inform your project?) |
Inclusion
(Yes/No) |
| Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2013)
|
Government Website
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
I-Evidenced Based Practice Guidelines
|
A complete handbook that outlines bedside shift report and how to implement it successfully. Provided resource material to educate nurses on BSR. | Yes
|
RUBRIC
ARTICULATION OF RESPONSE (CLARITY, ORGANIZATION, MECHANICS):
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides weak articulation of response. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides limited articulation of response. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides adequate articulation of response. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides substantial articulation of response. |
A1. CAPSTONE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide an appropriate description of the actual steps taken to implement the capstone project. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
Not applicable. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides an appropriate description, with insufficient detail, of the actual steps taken to implement the capstone project. |
COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides an appropriate description, with sufficient detail, of the actual steps taken to implement the capstone project. |
A2. CHANGES TO ORIGINAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of any changes that occurred to the original implementation plan during this process. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of any changes that occurred to the original implementation plan during this process. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of any changes that occurred to the original implementation plan during this process. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of any changes that occurred to the original implementation plan during this process. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of any changes that occurred to the original implementation plan during this process. |
A3. BARRIERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAPSTONE PROJECT:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of any barriers associated with the implementation of the capstone project. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of any barriers associated with the implementation of the capstone project. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of any barriers associated with the implementation of the capstone project. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of any barriers associated with the implementation of the capstone project. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of any barriers associated with the implementation of the capstone project. |
A3A. OVERCOMING BARRIERS:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the barriers discussed in part A3 were overcome. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the barriers discussed in part A3 were overcome. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the barriers discussed in part A3 were overcome. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the barriers discussed in part A3 were overcome. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the barriers discussed in part A3 were overcome. |
- TRANSPROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not appropriately identify transprofessional relationships that promoted implementation of the capstone project. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
Not applicable. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate appropriately identifies transprofessional relationships that promoted implementation of the capstone project. |
B1. HOW RELATIONSHIPS FACILITATED IMPLEMENTATION:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the relationships identified in part B facilitated the implementation of the project. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of how the relationships identified in part B facilitated the implementation of the project. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the relationships identified in part B facilitated the implementation of the project. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of how the relationships identified in part B facilitated the implementation of the project. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of how the relationships identified in part B facilitated the implementation of the project. |
- SUCCESSFUL ASPECTS:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the most successful aspects of the capstone project. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the most successful aspects of the capstone project. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the most successful aspects of the capstone project. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the most successful aspects of the capstone project. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the most successful aspects of the capstone project. |
C1. SUCCESSFUL ASPECTS: FUTURE PROJECTS:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the successes of the project help to inform future projects. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the successes of the project help to inform future projects. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the successes of the project help to inform future projects. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the successes of the project help to inform future projects. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the successes of the project help to inform future projects. |
- ASPECTS THAT DID NOT GO WELL:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of aspects of the project that did not go as well as anticipated. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of aspects of the project that did not go as well as anticipated. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of aspects of the project that did not go as well as anticipated. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of aspects of the project that did not go as well as anticipated. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of aspects of the project that did not go as well as anticipated. |
D1. ASPECTS THAT DID NOT GO WELL: FUTURE PROJECTS:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how an understanding of what did not go well can help to inform future projects. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how an understanding of what did not go well can help to inform future projects. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how an understanding of what did not go well can help to inform future projects. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how an understanding of what did not go well can help to inform future projects. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how an understanding of what did not go well can help to inform future projects. |
- EVIDENCE AND CURRENT PRACTICE:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the capstone project bridged the gap between evidence and current practice. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no support, of how the capstone project bridged the gap between evidence and current practice. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited support, of how the capstone project bridged the gap between evidence and current practice. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate support, of how the capstone project bridged the gap between evidence and current practice. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial support, of how the capstone project bridged the gap between evidence and current practice. |
- POST-IMPLEMENTATION:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the organization’s plan to support the post-implementation of the capstone project, including plans for short- and long-term maintenance. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the organization’s plan to support the post-implementation of the capstone project, including plans for short- and long-term maintenance. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the organization’s plan to support the post-implementation of the capstone project, including plans for short- and long-term maintenance. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the organization’s plan to support the post-implementation of the capstone project, including plans for short- and long-term maintenance. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the organization’s plan to support the post-implementation of the capstone project, including plans for short- and long-term maintenance. |
- POST-IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCES:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the resources needed for post-implementation support. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the resources needed for post-implementation support. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the resources needed for post-implementation support. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the resources needed for post-implementation support. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the resources needed for post-implementation support. |
- MSN PROGRAM OUTCOMES:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the candidate integrated 2 MSN program outcomes into the capstone project. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of how the candidate integrated 2 MSN program outcomes into the capstone project. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the candidate integrated 2 MSN program outcomes into the capstone project. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of how the candidate integrated 2 MSN program outcomes into the capstone project. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of how the candidate integrated 2 MSN program outcomes into the capstone project. |
- COMPLETED CAPSTONE REPORT:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide the completed capstone report, including the abstract and chapters 1–5. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
Not applicable. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
COMPETENT
Not applicable. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides the completed capstone report, including the abstract and chapters 1–5. |
J1. ABSTRACT -PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a summary of problem identification in the abstract. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a summary of problem identification in the abstract with no detail. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of problem identification in the abstract with limited detail. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of problem identification in the abstract with adequate detail. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of problem identification in the abstract with substantial detail. |
J2. ABSTRACT -PLAN:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a summary of the plan for addressing the problem under investigation in the abstract. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a summary of the plan for addressing the problem under investigation in the abstract, with no detail. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of the plan for addressing the problem under investigation in the abstract, with limited detail. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of the plan for addressing the problem under investigation in the abstract, with adequate detail. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of the plan for addressing the problem under investigation in the abstract, with substantial detail. |
J3. ABSTRACT -IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
The candidate does not provide a summary of the implementation process in the abstract. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
The candidate provides a summary of the implementation process in the abstract, with no detail. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of the implementation process in the abstract, with limited detail. |
COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of the implementation process in the abstract, with adequate detail. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
The candidate provides a summary of the implementation process in the abstract, with substantial detail. |
- SOURCES:
| UNSATISFACTORY / NOT PRESENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references. |
DOES NOT MEET STANDARD
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some in-text citations and references. |
MINIMALLY COMPETENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style. |
COMPETENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style. |
HIGHLY COMPETENT
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources. |
