Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review NUR 550

Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review NUR 550

In Part A, you described the population and quality initiative related to your PICOT (Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time to achieve the outcome) statement. In this assignment, you will formalize your PICOT and research process.

Use the GCU Library to perform a search for peer-reviewed research articles. Find five peer-reviewed primary source translational research articles.

In a paper of 1,250-1,500 words, synthesize the research into a literature review. The literature review should provide an overview for the reader that illustrates the research related to your particular PICOT. Include the following:

1.        Introduction: Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing.

2.        Methods: Describe the criteria you used in choosing your articles

3.        Synthesize the Literature: Part A: Discuss the main components of each article (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how this supports your PICOT; Part B: Compare and contrast the articles: Discuss limitations, controversies, and similarities/differences of the studies.

4.        Areas of Further Study: Analyze the evidence presented in your articles to identify what is known, unknown, and requires further study.

You are required to cite five to 10 sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review NUR 550

Benchmark Part B

Include the introduction here. In scholarly writing, the introduction does not include a heading. Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing. Include your PICOT question.

This paper should be 1,250 – 1,500 words that address the issues below. Integrate five scholarly sources into your paper. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review NUR 550

You are required to cite five to ten sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. DO NOT INCLUDE BENCHMARK PART A IN THIS SUBMISSION. Be sure to delete these directions prior to submitting your own paper.

Methods

As you can see, this header is bolded. Describe the criteria you used in choosing your articles.

Synthesize the Literature: Part A

Discuss the main components of each article including the subjects, methods, and key findings. Provide rationale for how this supports your PICOT. Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review NUR 550

Synthesize the Literature: Part B

Compare and contract the articles. Discuss limitations, controversies, and similarities and differences of the studies.

Areas for Further Study

Analyze the evidence presented in your articles to identify what is known, unknown, and requires further study.

References

Knutsson, S., & Bergbom, I. (2016). Children’s thoughts and feelings related to visiting critically ill relatives in an adult ICU: A qualitative study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 32, 33-41. doi:10.1016.j.iccn.2015.07.007

White, B. L., & Zomorodi, M. (2017). Perceived and actual noise levels in critical care units. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 38, 18-23. doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2016.06.004

 HYPERLINK “http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.chamberlain.edu:8080/science/article/pii/S0964339716300404” 

Assignment Title
Total Points
Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
250.0

Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
Less than Satisfactory (80.00%)
Satisfactory (88.00%)
Good (92.00%)
Excellent (100.00%)

An introduction is not included.
An introduction is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
An introduction is present.
An introduction is clearly provided and well developed.
A comprehensive introduction is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is not included.
A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is present.
A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is clearly provided and well developed.
A comprehensive discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is not included.
A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is present.
A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is clearly provided and well developed.
A comprehensive discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is not included.
A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is present.
A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is clearly provided and well developed.
A comprehensive discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is not included.
An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is present.
An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is clearly provided and well developed.
A comprehensive analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

Sources are not included.
Number of required sources is only partially met.
Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.
Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
All format elements are correct.

Sources are not documented.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review NUR 550

Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!