Dear freelancer, add 200 words to the attached paper to solve the teacher’s feedback.
the professor said “”I noticed that you did not identify an evidence-based practice model used to address a quality or safety issue, or a chosen issue. In order to improve your performance in this criterion please carefully refer to the assessment rubric while writing your assignment so that all the criteria are addressed. It is easy to miss a criterion at times. I would be happy to discuss this with you if you have any questions” “You did a nice job on this assessment! However, you are missing criterion 3. Identify an evidence-based practice model (such as John Hopkins, Stetler, Iowa, etc.) and explain the importance of incorporating credible evidence into an EBP model used to address a chosen diagnosis.
02/03/2024, 11:50
Determining the Credibility of Evidence and Resources Scoring Guide
Determining the Credibility of Evidence and Resources Scoring Guide
CRITERIA
NONPERFORMANCE
BASIC
PROFICIENT
DISTINGUISHED
Describe a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen diagnosis,
that could benefit
from an
evidencebased
approach.
Does not
describe a
quality or safety
issue, or a
chosen
diagnosis, that
could benefit
from an
evidence-based
approach.
Lists a quality or safety
issue, or a chosen
diagnosis, that could
benefit from an
evidence-based
approach.
Describes a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen diagnosis, that
could benefit from an
evidence-based
approach.
Describes a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen diagnosis, that
could benefit from an
evidence-based
approach. Provides a
specific rationale for the
importance or benefit of
applying an
evidencebased
approach. Uses
literature to support
discussion.
Explain criteria that
should be considered
when determining
credibility of
resources such as
journal articles and
websites.
Does not explain
criteria that
should be
considered when
determining
credibility of
resources such
as journal
articles and
websites.
Lists criteria that
should be considered
when determining
credibility of resources
such as journal articles
and websites.
Explains criteria that
should be considered
when determining
credibility of resources
such as journal articles
and websites.
Explains criteria that
should be considered
when determining
credibility of resources
such as journal articles
and websites. Notes
one or more ways the
criteria could be applied
to a specific resource.
Analyze the credibility
and relevance of
evidence and
resources within the
context of a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen diagnosis.
Does not
analyze the
credibility or
relevance of
evidence or
resources.
Describes the
credibility or relevance
of evidence or
resources, but does
not offer a complete
analysis. The specific
context of a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen diagnosis may
be unclear as well.
Analyzes the credibility
and relevance of
evidence and
resources within the
context of a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen diagnosis.
Analyzes the credibility
and relevance of
evidence and resources
within the context of a
quality or safety issue,
or a chosen diagnosis.
Additionally, identifies
the most useful
evidence or resource
based upon the
analysis.
Identify an
evidencebased
practice model
(such as John
Hopkins, Stetler,
Iowa, etc.) and
explain the
importance of
incorporating
credible evidence into
an EBP model used
to address a quality
or
safety issue, or a
chosen
diagnosis/health care
issue.
Does not identify
an
evidencebased
practice model
used to address
a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen
diagnosis/health
care issue.
Identifies an
evidencebased
practice model used to
address a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen
diagnosis/health care
issue. Does not explain
the model or the
importance of
incorporating credible
evidence.
Identifies an
evidencebased
practice model and
explains the
importance of
incorporating credible
evidence into an
evidence-based
practice model used to
address a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen
diagnosis/health care
issue.
Explains the
importance of
incorporating credible
evidence into an
evidence-based
practice model used to
address a quality or
safety issue, or a
chosen
diagnosis/health care
issue. Notes specific
examples of how the
model could help
improve the chosen
issue or
diagnosis/health care
issue.
Organize content so
ideas flow logically
with smooth
transitions; contains
few errors in
Does not
organize content
for ideas. Lacks
logical flow and
Attempts to organize
content with some
logical flow and
smooth transitions.
Contains several errors
in
Organizes content so
ideas flow logically with
smooth transitions;
contains few errors in
grammar/punctuation,
Organizes content with
a clear purpose.
Content flows logically
with smooth transitions
using coherent
https://a21371-2768599.cluster223.canvas-user-content.com/courses/21371~17896/files/21371~2768599/course files/Scoring Guides/a02_scoring_guide.html?contex… 1/2
02/03/2024, 11:50
Determining the Credibility of Evidence and Resources Scoring Guide
CRITERIA
NONPERFORMANCE
BASIC
grammar/punctuation, smooth
word choice, and
transitions.
spelling.
grammar/punctuation,
word choice, and
spelling.
Apply APA formatting
to in-text citations
and
references
exhibiting
nearly
flawless adherence to
APA format.
Attempts to apply APA
formatting to in-text
citations, headings and
references incorrectly,
detracting noticeably
from the content.
Inconsistently uses
headings, quotes
and/or paraphrasing.
Does not apply
APA formatting
to
headings,
intext citations,
and references.
Does not use
quotes
or
paraphrase
correctly.
PROFICIENT word
choice, and
spelling.
Applies
APA
formatting to in-text
citations
and
references exhibiting
nearly
flawless
adherence to APA
format.
DISTINGUISHED
paragraphs, correct
grammar/punctuation,
word choice, and free of
spelling errors.
Exhibits strict and
flawless adherence to
APA formatting of
headings, intext
citations, and
references. Quotes and
paraphrases correctly.
https://a21371-2768599.cluster223.canvas-user-content.com/courses/21371~17896/files/21371~2768599/course files/Scoring Guides/a02_scoring_guide.html?contex…
2/2
1
Enhancing Chronic Heart Failure Through Evidence-Based Ambulation Practices
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Instructor’s Name
Course Name
Due Date
2
Enhancing Chronic Heart Failure Through Evidence-Based Ambulation Practices
EBP is the central pillar of evidence-based healthcare that helps physicians assess
situations logically and increases the excellence of care. Management of chronic heart failure
(CHF) is an acute issue in healthcare, and the treatment strategies are not limited to just one
direction but require a more multimodal approach to improve patients’ prognosis and quality of
life. This paper presents how evidence-based walking strategies are developed to suit chronic
heart failure using a PICO(T) method model (Cartotto et al., 2023). A PICO(T)-formed question
comes first. It is followed by the facts and figures selected as evidence, the discussion of the
results, and the impact that these results have on the issue at hand. Therefore, this assessment
will show a correlation between ambulation and improved outcomes for chronic heart failure.
Criteria for Determining Credibility
Please take into account several multidimensional features of chronic disease that have
the side effects of HF and the remainder of the complications connected to it. Put differently, an
evidence-based method, as the most suitable fit, has two dimensions. First, it is a systematic tool
for patients’ practical and specialized knowledge that involves their preferences. In evidencebased strategies such as optimizing their medication, accompanied by lifestyle adjustments and
education of patients, healthcare providers will do a commendable job of not only easing the
symptoms of CHF but also averting hospitalizations and improving the quality of life of patients
with CHF.
EBPS and RBMP are essential in enhancing the decision-making regarding CHF
management. These standards established the outcome of a thorough review of contemporary
research on updated healthcare practices and helped physicians choose the correct evidence-
3
based intervention. The healthcare providers, following these regulations, could guarantee
consistency and standardization of HCF treatment, leading to better patient outcomes and better
healthcare quality in different healthcare settings.
Besides that, an evidence-based approach gives workers the capacity to arrive at educated
choices, enabling them to develop individually customized treatment strategies. By critically
assessing the existing evidence given such details as comorbidities and available social
determinants of health, clinicians develop individualized plans that address efficiency and
patient-centeredness in heart failure management (Kim et al., 2020). By the exploitation of
substance facts-based treatments and the utilization of tailored patient-centered options,
healthcare providers can satisfactorily tackle the complicated circumstances associated with CHF
and enhance patient outcomes that perpetuate the chronic condition.
Analyzing Credibility and Relevance
The quality and relevance of evidence are vital in any patient care non its value.
Healthcare systems use peer-reviewed journals and experts’ opinions as elements on which a
guidebook is built to respect scientific methods. They start their assessment of the source
credibility by determining author credentials and possible publication sources, followed by
identifying credible information.
Concerningness is about interrogating exemplification of the finding to the specific
clinical condition and patient population. The healthcare providers emphasize that evidencebased actions should be in tune with patients’ choices, preferences, and treatment goals;
therefore, patient-centered care will be promoted. They adapt interventions to fit the situation by
4
modifying them to suit the intended outcome by considering specific aspects of CHF
management and patient personal requirements.
Ultimately, comprehending possible impacts on patients helps healthcare providers
painlessly make decisions regarding treatment in CHF management. Health service staff balance
the pros and cons of integrating evidence-based practices in their treatment recommendation to
determine if it suits particular patient cases (Boswell &Cannon, 2022). By applying credible and
relevant data in a clinical practice, healthcare providers improve patient outcomes, raise quality
of life, and facilitate the effective transition of acute patients to ambulatory community care.
Importance of Incorporating Credible Evidence into EBP Models
Using creditable info in EBP models is necessary for healthcare delivery and nursing
practice guidelines, leading to better patient care and treatment. Referable evidence is the basis
for building EBP models, thus offering medical doctors reliable data for clinical applications and
treatment plans. Through the systemic review of studies from peer-reviewed journals, metaanalyses, and other documents, evidence-based practice models highlight the latest research,
allowing the care process to be based on the best available evidence, improving efficiency and
quality of care.
Thus, a reason for integrating valid evidence into the construction of EBP models is
patients’ safety and limiting injury probability. Research-backed interventions through
contextually situated studies can effectively reduce patient care drug complications. Healthcare
providers can minimize the threat of undertaking old techniques or risky methods by being tied
to evidence-based recommendations and guidelines. Hence, patients will get better and safer
care.
5
Furthermore, introducing expertise from over-proofs in the EBP framework management
helps create a culture of good teaching and lifetime professional development for healthcare
professionals. Clinicians can improve their knowledge by keeping up with recent research
discoveries and what is best noted as evidence-based practice. This should enhance their clinical
reasoning skills, and they should start adapting to existing healthcare trends and advancements.
Such committing to lifelong learning encourages a culture of quality, creativity, and
responsibility throughout healthcare organizations, and as a result, patients receive better
conditions of care and high-quality care.
A PICO(T) Evaluation
The PICO(T) model is a systematic tool implemented to develop clinical questions and locate
evidence-based alternatives, primarily when solving the CHF diagnosis is needed. This approach
includes the set-up of the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time frame. For
CHF, a sample question could be: “Examining outcomes between (I) Cardiac rehabilitation
participation (P) (IV) and (C) standard care only (C) using (T) six months post-enrollment (T) to
determine whether or not (I) functional capacity improves and hospital readmissions (O) are
reduced (O)”? By implementing PICO(T), healthcare providers can systematically scan through
different sources (Schiavenato & Chu, 2021). Engineers with precise and well-defined problems
can afford proper input review, which may improve care quality and better outcomes for heart
failure patients.
PICO(T) Question Development
PICO(T) Question is the second step in formulating the research question for the chronic heart
failure article after developing a general topic.
6
Population: In CHF patients who survive the past year, not only the preexisting conditions but
also psychosocial aspects of health deteriorate.
Intervention: Investigating whether enrollment in a structured cardiac rehabilitation regime
encompassing exercise and education notably influences prognosis.
Comparison: Heart failure management programs achieve more significant health outcomes than
those obtained from the usual care or regular CHF management methods.
Outcome: Are the subjects of cardiac rehabilitation programs nurturing functional capacity,
quality of life, and mortality rates while hospitalization and re-hospitalization are on the decline?
Timeframe: By the time post-admission (for example, six months or one year), the following
steps should be taken.
Identification of Sources of Evidence
The identification of sources of data that relate to chronic heart failure (CHF) starts by
getting information from resources within reach that are both trustworthy and relevant to
evidence-based practice and clinical judgment. Medical practitioners referred to academic
databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) as the primary source to access recent
peer-reviewed literature, such as journal articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses specific
to CHF. Such databases function as a central storage facility, in which the ever-emerging
knowledge on diagnosis and management of CHF is stored, thereby allowing the healthcare
providers to be informed on the emerging findings and adopt evidence-based interventions.
Peer-reviewed journals are the critical component of evidence identification regarding
CHF, as they publish original case studies, reviews, and research that go through strict peer
7
review before being placed in print. This article has been instrumental in its numerous parts, such
as pathological pathways, diagnostics, treatment, and therapeutic strategies. Furthermore,
systemic reviews and meta-analyses review existing studies’ evidence, synthesizing it to provide
a systematic overview of the effectiveness and safety of the interventions in CHF management.
Additionally, clinical practice guidelines, usually given by trustworthy organizations,
such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC),
are generally devoted to proposing evidence-based recommendations concerning CHF
management. These guidelines translate recommendations that best practice can be derived from
articles peer reviewed and expert consensus to support physicians in diagnosis, application of
treatment, management, and monitoring strategies for CHF. Healthcare providers can focus on
consulting a wide range of peer-reviewed journals, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and
clinical practice guidelines to access a comprehensive evidence base that will inform the
evidence-based practice and consequently optimize the patient outcome in CFH management.
Findings from Articles and Other Sources of Evidence
The outcomes of different journals and other sources of evidence are worth mentioning as
they offer unique insights into chronic heart failure (CHF) management. CHF peer-reviewed
journal article raises awareness of CHF pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment options.
Frequently, research studies testing pharmacological interventions such as angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists
(MRAs) to ensure better outcomes for CHF patients (McDonagh et al., 2021). One more
direction for this research about the non-pharmacological methods, like nutrition modulation,
8
exercise training, or cardiac rehabilitation, may also be designed to manage the symptoms of
CHF and improve the quality of life.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are functions that obtain summarized information
from arrays of longitudinal studies, and the results give an overview of the health effects of
various interventions in managing CHF. Such reviews commonly accentuate the significance of
the multi-field approach to CHF care with the perspective of the healthcare providers, including
cardiologists, nurses, dieticians, and physical therapists, put at the forefront to maximize medical
outcomes (Cartotto et al., 2023). Other than that, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and
the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) have specialized clinical practice guidelines that are
evidence-based and give recommendations on CHF management. These guidelines are very
beneficial to clinicians in decision-making regarding diagnosing and managing the disorder.
Other evidence, including gray literature and meeting abstracts, also has a place in the
evidence basin by providing information related to emergent trends and CHF management
research findings. For instance, many sources may include a new way of intervention, diagnostic
tests, or risk self-assessment, among others, for chronic heart failure patients. By evaluating the
findings critically in journals and other evidence-based sources, providers can work out their
choices, tailor interventions to patients’ needs, and optimize patient outcomes.
Relevance of Findings to Decision-Making
The most crucial factor in CHF regarding research findings to providers is that these
outcomes should help patients recover and be used in medical practice. Organizational programs
and policies that rely on tried-and-true research findings as the primary influence on decisions by
those who care for CHF patients work well. Thus, when making judgments about the
9
applicability of the findings, healthcare professionals see that the intervention suits the particular
needs and conditions of CHF clients; in doing so, they provide better quality care.
Hence, study outcomes of ACEIs and beta-blockers, for instance, being essential tools in
limiting CHF-related deaths and hospitalizations, are very significant in the context of evidencebased clinical decision-making. Healthcare providers could utilize this data to make better
treatment decisions that will consider the severity of a patient’s condition and whether they take
other medications or how well they tolerate them.
In addition, evidence-based practices, with recommendations and guidelines issued by
professional organizations, are the sources through which clinicians can obtain a practical
understanding of the diagnostics and therapeutic approaches to CHF management. Observing
these policies is one of the measures that healthcare providers can take to ensure that services are
standardized and that favorable clinical results are realized. Patients will be kept safe (Moradi et
al., 2020). Conclusively, data from research studies and meta-analyses could reveal any trending
or emerging innovation in CHF treatment, thus giving researchers an enriched knowledge base
that can be the source of professional decision-making and further research. Overall, this finding
links to policy determination in CHF management and facilitates the application of interventions
of a scientific nature, a patient-centered approach, and the like with evidence-based practices.
10
References
Boswell, C., & Cannon, S. (2022). Introduction to nursing research: Incorporating evidence-based
practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Cartotto, R., Johnson, L., Rood, J. M., Lorello, D., Matherly, A., Parry, I., … & Nedelec, B. (2023).
Clinical practice guideline: early mobilization and rehabilitation of critically ill burn
patients. Journal of Burn Care & Research, 44(1), 1–15.
Kim, M., Mallory, C., & Valerio, T. (2020). Statistics for evidence-based practice in nursing. Jones
& Bartlett Publishers.
McDonagh, T. A., Metra, M., Adamo, M., Gardner, R. S., Baumbach, A., Böhm, M., … & Kathrine
Skibelund, A. (2021). 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and
chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute
and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the exceptional
contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. European Heart Journal,
42(36), 3599-3726.
Moradi, M., Daneshi, F., Behzadmehr, R., Rafiemanesh, H., Bouya, S., & Raeisi, M. (2020).
Quality of life of chronic heart failure patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Heart failure reviews 25, 993-1006.
Schiavenato, M., & Chu, F. (2021). PICO: What it is and is not—nurse education in practice, 56,
103194.