Northern Arizona University
College of Health and Human Services
School of Nursing
SYLLABUS
Course Title: NUR 390: Nursing Research & Evidence Based Practice
Semester: Fall 2010
Credits: Three (3) credit hours
Instructor: Vicki Black-Bishop, Ph(c), RN
*Nursing Building, #110
* use course email, please
*Office: (928)523-8774 OR 1(800)426-8315 X8774 – Please do not leave messages on this phone
*Cell Phone: 404-451-5504 – this is the best phone to use
*Home Phone: 928-266-7913
*Office Hours: Wednesdays 8:00 -11: 00 am; other times by appointment
Please do not call or text me before 6 am or after 10pm
Course Prerequisites: STA 270, or equivalent statistics course.
Course Description: Focuses on research process as it relates to health and nursing practice. Emphasizes developing abilities to interpret research reports and apply research evidence to nursing practice.
Course approach and delivery: This online course uses a VISTA platform for the delivery of assignments, asynchronous online discussions, and exploration of selected issues using internet sources. Text and electronic readings, weekly quizzes, and written assignments are also included as approaches to learning in this course.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES:
Upon completion of this course, the successful student will be prepared to:
Accountability
1. Utilize research by incorporating research evidence into nursing practice.
2. Explain the need for an evidence-base in nursing practice.
Caring
3. Discuss the concept of “vulnerable population: and its implication for conducting research.
Communication
4. Utilize electronic databases and resources to efficiently and effectively locate desired research-based evidence.
Competency
5. Critically appraise best evidence to answer selected clinical questions.
Critical Thinking
6. Examine clinical questions in relation to levels of evidence.
Culture
7. Consider client values/viewpoint in the application of clinical evidence for decision-making.
Leadership/Management
8. Promote integration of research findings in clinical settings.
COURSE CONTENT
Module I: Overview & Foundations of Nursing Research
Lesson 1 (Week 1): Introduction and overview
Lesson 2 (Week 2): Evidence-based practice: what? why? what now?
Lesson 3 (Week 3): Reading research reports
Lesson 4 (Week 4): Asking clinical questions
Lesson 5 (Week 5): Finding answers--searching for evidence
Lesson 6 (Week 6): Ethics and the research process
Module II: Now what do I do with this?
Lesson 1 (Week 7): Theoretical frameworks
Lesson 2 (Week 8): The naturalist paradigm & qualitative approaches
Lesson 3 (Week 9): The positivist paradigm & quantitative approaches
Lesson 4 (Week 10): Sampling issues and data collection in quantitative & qualitative research
Lesson 5 (Week 11): Bias, reliability & validity in data analysis
Module III: Taking the next step....
COURSE READINGS: Lesson 1 (Week 12): Summarizing evidence & Clinical Practice Guidelines
Lesson 2 (Week 13): Critical appraisal: Evidence Summaries & Clinical Practice Guidelines
Lesson 3 (Week 14): Applying evidence & disseminating research
Required textbooks:
Polit, P.F., & Beck, C.T.. (2010). Essentials of nursing research: Methods,
appraisal, & utilization (7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. PLEASE DO NOT USE AN EARLIER EDITION OF THIS BOOK
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication of Manual of the
American Psychological Association, (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. PLEASE DO NOT USE THE 5TH EDITION OF THIS BOOK
Supplemental Readings/Electronic Course Reserves (available within course shell):
Week 1:
Polit, P.F., & Beck, C.T. (2010). Introducing research and its use in nursing
practice. In Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, & utilization (6th ed.), [pp 3-32]. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. *this chapter of the text is also available electronically for the first week’s lesson if you are waiting for your text to arrive*
Gordon, S., & Nelson, S. (2005). An end to angels: Moving away from the
"virtue script" toward a knowledge-based identity for nurses. American Journal of Nursing, 105(5), 62-69.
Week 2:
Institute of Medicine (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: Shaping the future
for health. Washington, DC: Author. (Download: http://www.iom.edu/file.asp?id=27184)
Week 3: Article for Abstract Translation Assignment:
Aiken, L. H., Clarke, S. P., Cheung, R. B., Sloane, D. M., & Silber, J. H.
(2003,September 24). Educational levels of hospital nurses and surgical patient mortality, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 290, 1617-1623.
Week 4:
Nolan, R., Fineout-Overholt, E., & Stephenson, P. (2005). Asking compelling
clinical questions. In B. M Melnyk & E. Fineout-Overholt, Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice [pp. 25-37]. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Week 6:
John, J. E. (2007). The child’s right to participate in research: Myth or
misconception? British Journal of Nursing 16(3), 157-160.
Article for Ethical Critique Assignment:
Sarna, L., Bialous, S. A., Wewers, M. E., Froelicher, E. S., & Danao, L.
(2005). Nurses, smoking, and the workplace. Research in Nursing and Health, 28, 79-90.
Week 7:
Smith, M. (2004). Review of research related to Watson’s Theory of Caring.
Nursing Science Quarterly, 17(1), 17-25.
Tourville, C. & Ingalls, K. (2003). The living tree of nursing theories. Nursing
Outlook, 38(3), 21-36.
Week 10: Use these articles for the Paradigm Comparison Assignment:
Albrecht, S. A., Caruthers, D., Patrick, T., Reynolds, M., Salamie, D.,
Higgins, L.W., Braxter, B., Kim, Y., & Mlynarchek, S. (2006). A randomized control trial of a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant adolescents. Nursing Research, 55,(6) 402-410.
Falkin, G.P., Fryer, C. S., & Mahadeo, M. (2007). Smoking cessation and
stress among teenagers. Qualitative Health Research, 17(6), 812-823.
Week 12:
Ezzo, J. (2007). What can be learned from the Cochrane systematic reviews
of massage that can guide future research? The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 13 (2), 291-295 4
McQueen, K., & Dennis, C.-L. (2007). Development of a
postpartum depression best practice guideline: A review of the systematic process. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 22(3), 199-204.
Week 13:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2002). Systems to
rate the strength of scientific evidence (AHRQ publication no. 02-E016).
Broughton, R. & Rathbone, B. (2004). What makes a good clinical guideline?
Evidence-based Medicine, 1(11). Retrieved Januray 30, 2006: http://www.evidence-based medicine.co.uk/ebmfiles/WhatmakesClinGuide.pdf
Slutsky, J. (2005). Using evidence-based practice guidelines: Tools for
improving practice. In B. Melnyk & E. Fineout-Overholt, Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice, [pp. 221-236]. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Small, L., Anderson, D., Melnyk, B. M. (2007). Prevention and early
treatment of overweight and obesity in young children: A critical review and appraisal of the evidence. Pediatric Nursing, 33(2), 149-161, 127.
Week 14:
Pipe, T. B. (2007). Optimizing nursing care by integrating theory-driven
evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 22(3), 234-238.
Rauen, C. A., Chulay, M., Briedges, E., Vollman, K. M., Arbour, R. (2008).
Seven evidence-based practice habits: Putting some sacred cows out to pasture. Critical Care Nurse, 28(2), 98-124.
GRADING AND EVALUATION:
Your grade in this course will be earned from numerous sources of work:
Assignments / PointsQuizzes (1st 12 weeks) / 175
Weekly Discussions / 75
Moderator of Discussion / 10
Course Agreement / 5
Annotated Bibliography / 20
Ethical Critique / 20
Paradigm Comparison / 25
Final Paper / 100
Electronic Presentation / 20
Total / 450
Using the NAU School of Nursing grading scale, grades will be calculated as follows:
418-450 points = A
417-378 points = B
377-337 points = C
336 points and below = F; must repeat and cannot progress in nursing courses
It is important to note that an Incomplete in this course will prevent you from progressing in the nursing sequence (until it is resolved).
Assignment due dates:
Assignments, discussion postings and quizzes, are due no later than 8:00 a.m. MST on the Monday dates described in the Calendar. However, assignments may be turned in early. Assignments turned in after the due date and time will have a point reduction of 5% of the total possible points for the assignment for each day that the assignment is late if prior arrangements are not made with instructor.
Quizzes: In this course the weekly quizzes are open-book quizzes, but NOT collaborative quizzes. Please put forth your own best effort, using text or other print and online resources. However, collaboration with another person will be considered a breach of academic integrity. See Course Policies
All quizzes will be available from the beginning of the course, but will close at the end of the lesson on Mondays when online discussions are closed—8:00 a.m. MST. You may take a quiz up to three times within the timeframe that it is open; your highest grade will be recorded. Missed quizzes cannot be made up unless arrangements are made with the instructor prior to the closing of the quiz.
Online Discussion dates: Online discussions are designed to take place over one week. It is expected that initial contributions to the discussion will occur earlier in the described time frame (Monday through Friday), and additional entries, responding to two classmates' postings, is expected prior to the closing of the discussion topic (responses are accepted through the weekend until the Discussion closes on Monday morning). Please make sure that you are posting to the correct Discussion; misplaced discussion postings may not be counted. Discussion postings will be graded according to the stated Rubric. Contributions to online discussions after the described time frame will not be accepted, and grade credit will not be awarded.
Evaluative Rubric for Web CT Discussion Assignments
Up to five points may be earned each week for participation in the course Discussion. Two portions are involved in the grading of the Discussion Assignments:
Individual student postings that include an analysis of the question(s) being discussed. A score of 0-5 will be awarded to the initial posting using the rubric standards below. This initial posting is expected in the Monday-Friday timeframe of the weekly lesson.
Up to one additional point will be awarded to each of two (maximum) responses to other student postings that are substantive and contribute to thoughtful and collegial dialogue. Responses may be posted through the weekend period of the lesson, up until the Monday morning closing of the lesson.
When considering the initial discussion posting, the following criteria will be used:
Score of 5: OUTSTANDING
Student will address the questions directly and thoroughly. The position taken will be supported with specific evidence and examples with the line of reasoning clearly articulated. The reader will clearly know the student’s judgment and the reasons for it, with no need to seek further information. In addition, the reader will recognize the student’s insight into the issues as well as the analysis and interpretation. References (cited in APA format) will strengthen the position(s) taken.
In addition, the student will read 100% of the posts
Score of 4: ACCEPTABLE
Student will address the questions, though its focus may wander in portions. Elements of the student’s position may not be completely developed or may receive erratic support (i.e., some points supported well, while others supported weakly). The quality of writing interferes with understanding. The reader will recognize basic understanding of the issues represented, though with a need for some clarification or elaboration. References may not be included, or cited incorrectly.
In addition, the student will read 75% of the posts
Score of 1: WEAK
Student may fail to address the question adequately. Ideas are put together without careful design, so that the overall effect is confusion on the part of the reader. Little support is provided for the arguments or comparison made, and inaccuracies may be present. Mechanical errors may be substantial, and there errors may attribute to misunderstandings. The reader will have serious questions about the writer’s understanding. Frequent misspellings and/or grammatical errors contribute to difficulties for the reader.
In addition, the student will read 50% of the posts
Score of 0: FAIL
Student fails to address the question adequately. Ideas are irrelevant to question and confuse to the reader. No rationale is proved to support the arguments. The quality of writing is poor; mechanical errors are substantial which results in misunderstandings. The reader will have serious difficulty following writer’s understanding. In addition, the student reads less than 50% of the posts.
There is also a Discussion Facilitator assignment, described below:
Discussion Facilitator
During certain weeks of the semester, a discussion facilitator will be assigned for the weekly discussions. The facilitator will be responsible for answering the discussion question as usual, but, in addition, she/he will do the following:
1. Read the posts every day of the assigned week and pose thought-provoking questions to stimulate substantive discussion.
2. The facilitator will provide helpful and gentle feedback to each group member – such as, Please discuss this further; this particular sentence is not clear; don’t forget to cite the in-text references, etc. The facilitator’s job is to help keep the discussion going in a meaningful way. She/he might also gently point out that some replies are not substantive enough in nature. The facilitator is not to criticize but to gently keep the discussion going.
2. At the end of the weekly postings (between Sunday evening and Monday morning at 8 am), the facilitator will summarize the group’s discussion. Summarization should include the key points that were made and should include references.
3. Discussions week 3-11 will be assigned facilitators. I will post the assignments during the first ten days of class.
4. This assignment is worth 10 points.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Wikipedia is not considered an acceptable, valid, reliable resource for use in any School of Nursing coursework, especially NUR 390. Any assignment/discussion that cites this source will automatically be graded with a zero (0). One purpose of this course is to help students identify, appraise, and utilize valid and reliable professional resources. Wikipedia does not meet this criterion.
NAU STUDENT POLICIES: http://www2.nau.edu/academicadmin/UCCPolicy/plcystmt.html
1