Based on “Case Study: Fetal Abnormality” and other required topic study materials, write a 750-1,000-word reflection that answers the following questions:

1. What is the Christian view of the nature of human persons, and which theory of moral status is it compatible with? How is this related to the intrinsic human value and dignity?
2. Which theory or theories are being used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson to determine the moral status of the fetus? What from the case study specifically leads you to believe that they hold the theory you selected?
3. How does the theory determine or influence each of their recommendations for action?
4. What theory do you agree with? Why? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?

Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Rubric

Explanation of the Christian view of the nature of human persons and the theory of moral status that it is compatible is clear, thorough, and explained with a deep understanding of the connection between them. Explanation is supported by topic study materials. 30%

The theory or theories that are used by each person to determine the moral status of the fetus is explained clearly and draws insightful relevant conclusions. Rationale for choices made is clearly supported by topic study materials and case study examples. 15%

Explanation of how the theory determines or influences each of their recommendations for action is clear, insightful, and demonstrates a deep understanding of the theory and its impact on recommendation for action. Explanation is supported by topic study materials. 15%

Evaluation of which theory is preferable within personal practice along with how that theory would influence personal recommendations for action is clear, relevant, and insightful. 10%

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

All format elements are correct.

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Here is a link to the Khan video on Moral Status. It will help explain the five theories discussed in the lecture: 

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-value-theory/wiphi-ethics/v/moral-status 

Application 4: Planning for Change, Implementing and Evaluating EBP Projects

Evaluating EBP Projects

Many factors influence how successfully an EBP Project is implemented and evaluated. As noted in this week’s Learning Resources, using a translation framework can facilitate effective implementation and the evaluation of outcomes.

As you complete Application 4, revisit the evidence-based practice model or framework you selected for your EBP Project (Application 2 [see attached file]). How does the model or framework facilitate the evaluation of outcomes? Would another model or framework better meet the needs of your project?

To prepare for this week’s section of Application 4:

• Continue      (from this week’s Discussion[ use the discussion you are currently working on for me]) to:
  • Identify       an appropriate method for evaluating your outcomes.
  • Develop       new practice guidelines based on the possible results of the evaluation.
  • Create,       if appropriate, new standards of care that would be based on the new practice guidelines.

This paper should be written in APA format with a minimum of 8 scholarly references. All level 1 & 2 headers must be as in the grading rubric (see attached file). The paper must also include an introduction ending with a purpose statement and a conclusion as per APA guidelines. Do not go over the required maximum of 8-page. The Paper must be cited often and throughout.

The full Application 4 is due by Wednesday 10/31/18 before midgnight of this week. Instructions for how to prepare for previous sections of this Application have been provided in Weeks 8 and 9 (see attached files on WK8 & WK9 discussions you previously did for me).

To complete: (See attached Grading Rubric)

Write a 4- to 8-page paper that addresses the following:

1) Planning for EBP Change (see attached file on WK8 Discussion)

a) Analyze the impact of implementing change in your practice environment, including the factors that need to be considered regarding stakeholders and end users.

b) Summarize the methods you would use to ensure that those are adequately addressed.

2) Implementing EBP Projects (see attached file on WK9 Discussion)

a) Identify the desired outcomes of your EBP Project.

b) Describe any macro or micro systems issues that may inhibit implementation and strategies for resolving those issues.

c) Explain how resolving your EBP Project issue will improve quality and patient safety.

3) Evaluating EBP Projects (See this week Discussion you are currently working on)

a) Describe evaluation strategies.

b) Formulate new practice guidelines based on the possible results of the evaluation of outcomes.

c) Describe, if appropriate, new standards of care relevant to the new practice guidelines

Required Readings

White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terharr, M. F. (2016). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

• Chapter      4, “Translation of Evidence to Improve Clinical Outcomes”
• Chapter      5, “Translation of Evidence for Improving Safety and Quality”
• Chapter      7, “Translation of Evidence for Health Policy”
• Chapter      17, “Data Management and Evaluation of Translation”
• Chapter      14, “Creating a Culture That Promotes Translation”
• Chapter      15, “Best Practices in Translation: Challenges and Barriers in      Translation”

Darling, F. (2016). Practitioners’ views and barriers to implementation of the Keeping Birth Normal tool: A pilot study. British Journal of Midwifery, 24(7), 508-519.

Sadeghi-Bazargani, H., Tabrizi, J.S., & Azami-Aghdash, S. (2014). Barriers to evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20, 793-802.

Smith, E.L., Rice, K.L., & Agrell-Kann, M. (2015). Improving quality outcomes using a champion model for ancillary nursing staff, Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 46(12), 539-541.

Andermann, A., Pang, T., Newton, J.T., Davis, A., & Panisset, U. (2016). Evidence for health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14 (17) doi 10.1186/s12961-016-0086-3

Catallo, C. & Sidani, S. The self-assessment for organizational capacity instrument for evidence-informed health policy: Preliminary reliability and validity of an instrument (2014). Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(1), 35–45.

Malterud, K., Bjelland, K., & Elvbakken, K.T. (Evidence-based medicine – an appropriate tool for evidence-based health policy? A case study from Norway. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14 (15) doi 10.1186/s12961-016-0088-1

Rehfuess, E.A., Durao, S., Kyamanywa, P., Meerpohl, J. J., Young, T., & Rohwer, A. (2016). An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries, Policy & Practice, 94, 297–305 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.162966

Schaffer, M.A., Sandau, K.E., & Diedrick, L. (2013). Evidence-based practice models for organizational change: overview and practical applications. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(5), 1197-1209 (see attached file).

Erickson, K., Monsen, K.A., Artleson, I.S., Radosevich, D.M., Oftedahl, G., Neely, C., & Thorsen, D.R. Translation of obesity practice guidelines: Measurement and evaluation. Public Health Nursing, 12(3), 222–23. doi: 10.1111/phn.12169. (see attached file)

Wang, Y., Xiao, L.D., Ullah, S., Guo-Ping, H., & De Bellis, A. Evaluation of a nurse-led dementia education and knowledge translation programme in primary care: A cluster randomized controlled trial (2017). Nurse Education Today, 49, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.10.016. (see attached file)

Abdullah, G., Rossy, D., Ploeg, J., Davies, B., Higuchi, K., Sikora, L., & Stacey, D. (2014). Measuring the effectiveness of mentoring asa knowledge translation intervention for implementing empirical evidence: A systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11 (5) 284–300. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1111/wvn.12060 (see attached file)

Einarson, A., Egberts, T.c., & Heerdink, E.R. (2015). Antidepressant use in pregnancy: knowledge transfer and translation of research findings. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21, 579-583 doi:10.1111/jep.12338 (see attached file)

PIICOT Question

In patients in extended intensive care within an urban acute care facility in Eastern United States, how does early mobilization as recommended by National Institute of Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines on rehabilitation of patients after critical illness impact early transfers from intensive care as measured 6 months post-implementation when compared to the current standard of care including minimal mobilization of patients?

P: Adult patients

I: in extended intensive care within an urban acute care facility

I: increased mobilization of the patients

C: minimal mobilization of the patients

O: early transfers of the patients from intensive care

T: 6 months

Task description:

• Students are to engage with a consumer who is experiencing illness or who has had previous contact with the health care system.
• Students are to produce a narrative piece of writing structured under Borton’s Framework for Reflection’s What? So What? and Now What? headings.

What?              Students are to provide a synopsis of the consumer interaction (What did they say? / What happened to the consumer? / What was their experience?).

So What?        Students are to provide a detailed exploration of the narratives of the consumer health journey  with reference to the three narrative theories discussed in week 1. (What does it all mean? / What are the underlying themes? / What narrative theory is evident?).

Now What?    Students are to provide an insightful reflection around how the interaction has contributed to their    professional development (How the experience will make you a better nurse?).

Use the following structure as a guide for your assignment:

1. Cover page or header with the unit number, unit title, assignment title and your student number (not includedin word count).
2. Introduction: Approximately 150 words, including in-text citations.
3. What?  Synopsis of the consumer’s story (Approximately 400 words, including in-text citations).
4. So What?  Exploration of the consumer’s narratives and narrative theory (Approximately 400 words, including in-text citations).
5. Now what? Refection on professional development (Approximately 400 words, including in-text citations).
6. Conclusion: Sum up the consumer journey/narratives/reflection (approximately 150 words, including in-text citations).
7. Reference list (not included in the word count).

Notes

• Assignments should adhere to academic writing principals.
• Students should use either Arial, Calibri or Times New Roman font styles in size 11 or 12. Assignments should be 1.5 or double spaced.
• Please only write in the first or third person for this assignment. You may prefer to use a combination of both (eg: third person for the introduction, What? and So what? parts and first person in the Now what? and conclusion).
• Students MUST use de-identified names for when referring to the consumer in your assignment. This is to protect their confidentiality.
• Feel free to use headings to differentiate each section of your assignment (eg: What?, So What? and Now What?).
• There is no minimum number of references for this assignment however Borton’s Framework for Reflection should be referenced appropriately.
• Assignments should be first submitted through the URKUND portal in Canvas. Please review your URKUND result and make appropriate amendments (if required) prior to your final submission in the Assignment 1 portal on Canvas to avoid plagiarism.

Marking and moderation

• Marking and moderation processes will be actioned in accordance with university policy.
• Prior to the start of marking, a sample of 2-3 assignments will be individually marked by all members of the marking team.
• Final marks and comments will then be discussed amongst the group to standardise the assignment expectations and marking process.
• All assignments will be marked blind to student names (student IDs only visible).
• All fail marks plus a cross section of all other marks (pass, credit, distinction and high distinctions) across all classes will be moderated.
• Where there is a discrepancy between the marks awarded by the first and second marker, the average mark will be awarded.
• If there is a student grievance around the marking, a third person will mark the assignment.