Executive Solution Overview
please create a discussion post following the instructions and the rubric. Please also use the resources provided Instructions: **Post** a response to the following prompts: – Identify nursing problems implicit in the nursing research study and the QI DNP project. – Describe how the nursing problems…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
please create a discussion post following the instructions and the rubric. Please also use the resources provided
Instructions: **Post** a response to the following prompts:
– Identify nursing problems implicit in the nursing research study and the QI DNP project.
– Describe how the nursing problems define the gap in knowledge (research) and the gap in practice (QI and DNP projects). Compare and contrast how the problems are presented and potentially influence a positive nursing practice change.
– Identify one key measurement/variable used in each of the three studies/projects.
– Critique the question development tool presented in terms of the problem, the EBP question, and the measurement (Hicks, 2024).
Rubric: RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
**20** **to >19.0** **ptsExcellent• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty.**
**19** **to >15.0** **ptsGood• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty.**
**15** **to >12.0** **ptsFair• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort.**
**12** **to >0** **ptsPoor• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries.**
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
**30** **to >29.0** **ptsExcellentInitial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.**
**29** **to >23.0** **ptsGoodInitial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.**
**23** **to >18.0** **ptsFairInitial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.**
**18** **to >0** **ptsPoorInitial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.**
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
**20** **to >19.0** **ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.**
**19** **to >15.0** **ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day.**
**15** **to >12.0** **ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day.**
**12** **to >0** **ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day.**
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
**20** **to >19.0** **ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.**
**19** **to >15.0** **ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day.**
**15** **to >12.0** **ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day.**
**12** **to >0** **ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day.**
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
**10** **to >9.0** **ptsExcellentDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.**
**9** **to >8.0** **ptsGoodDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.**
**8** **to >6.0** **ptsFairDiscussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.**
**6** **to >0** **ptsPoorDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.**
10 pts
Total Points: 100
Resources: Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2025). _Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines_(5th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.
– Chapter 1, “Evidence-Based Practice: Past, Present, and Future” (pp. 4–13)
– Chapter 4, “The Practice Question Phase: The EBP Question” (pp. 54–62)
– Question Development Tool (pp. 210–215)
– Emsden, C., Schäfer, U. B., Denhaerynck, K., Grossmann, F., Frei, I. A., & Kirsch, M. (2020). [Validating a pain assessment tool in heterogeneous ICU patients: Is it possible?Links to an external site.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nicc.12469 "Link") _Nursing in Critical Care, 25_(1), 8–15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nicc.12469
– Salkind, N., & Frey, B. (2025). _Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics_ (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
– Chapter 1, “Statistics or Sadistics? It’s Up to You” (pp. 5–23)
– Chapter 4: "Reliability and Validity: Tell the Truth, Precisely the Truth (pp. 75–95)
– **Document:** Hicks, T. (2024). [_Quality evaluation of a central line associated bloodstream infection_](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216680/files/18029282?wrap=1) [Download Quality evaluation of a central line associated bloodstream infection](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216680/files/18029282/download?download_frd=1). Walden University CAO Repository.