GCU NRS 493 Improve Care for Patients Capstone Change Project

Capstone Change Project Objectives 250 to 500 words NRS493 please see attached for details and rubric. Thanks.

Benchmark_capstone_change_project_objectives_rubric.xlsx benchmark_capstone_change_project_objectives.docx

sources objectives_week_3

Review your problem or issue and the cultural assessment. Consider how the findings connect to your topic and intervention for your capstone change project. Write a list of three to five objectives for your proposed intervention. Below each objective, provide a one or two sentence rationale.

After writing your objectives, provide a rationale for how your proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.

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 not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies: RN to BSN

1.5: Advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.

The next step in developing an evidence-based practice change proposal for the capstone project is to conduct a thorough review of the literature pertaining to the chosen topic. In this topic, students will examine the research literature and utilize library resources to locate quality, peer-reviewed sources to support their chosen topic and solution. Students will use the PICOT question process to create a PICOT question for their topic.


● Critique evidence-based research to support the development of the capstone project change proposal.

● Create a PICOT question incorporating an evidence-based nursing practice intervention.

● Create objectives for an evidence-based nursing practice change proposal.

● Integrate reflective practice into the practicum reflective journal.

● Demonstrate interprofessional collaboration during the creation of the capstone project change proposal.


Read “Translating Research for Evidence-Based Practice,” by Bowen and Forrest, from Access (2017).

URL:https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru e&db=ccm&AN=120577496&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Read “The Effect of Translating Research Into Practice Intervention to Promote Use of Evidence-Based Fall Prevention Interventions in Hospitalized Adults: A Prospective

Pre-Post Implementation Study in the U.S.,” by Titler et al., from Applied Nursing Research (2016).

URL:https://www-sciencedirect-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S089718971500 2384

Read “Selecting the Best Theory to Implement Planned Change,” by Mitchell, from Nursing Management (2013).

URL:http://home.nwciowa.edu/publicdownload/Nursing%20Department%5CNUR310%5CSel ecting%20the%20Best%20Theory%20 to%20 Implement%20 Planned%20Change.pdf Read “Science of Improvement: Testing Changes,” located on the Institute for

Healthcare Improvement website. URL:http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/ScienceofImprovementTestingCha nges.aspx

Read “Asking Focused Questions,” located on the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine website.


Read “Formulating a Researchable Question: A Critical Step for Facilitating Good Clinical Research,” by Aslam and Emmanuel, from Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and AID (2010).

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140151/ 

Read “Research Questions, Hypotheses and Objectives,” by Farrugia, Petrisor, Farrokhyar, and Bhandari, from Canadian Journal of Surgery (2010).

URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912019/

Explore Nursing Theory website. This website provides information on leading nursing theories.


Explore the Nursing Theories page of the Current Nursing website. This website provides information on leading nursing theories.

URL: http://currentnursing.com/nursing_theory/

Course CodeClass CodeAssignment TitleTotal Points      
NRS-493NRS-4 93-IO9210Benchmark –Capstone Change Project Objective s5.0      
CriteriaPercentage1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%)2: Less ThanSatisfactory (75.00%)3: Satisfactory (79.00%)4: Good (89.00%)5: Excellent (100.00%)Com mentsPoints Earned 
Objective s25.0%A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted.NANANAThree to five objective s arepresented.   
  Fewer thanthree objective s arepresented.       
Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic andPropose dIntervention30.0%Rationale for each objective is omitted.Rationale isincomplete. There are omissions.Rationale provided does not explainthe relationsGeneral rationale isprovided for each objective andgenerally summarizes the relationship ofmostRationale isprovided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topicRationale is clearly provided for each objective andthoroughly explains the relationship of the findings   
   hip of findings to the topic and proposed intervention.findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies orminor omissions.andpropose dintervention.Some detail is needed for clarity.to the topic and propose dintervention.   
Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objective sAdvocate forAutonomy and SocialJustice forIndividuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5)25.0%Rationale for howproposed projects and objective sadvocate forautonomy and socialjustice forindividuals and diverse populations are omitted.Incompleterationale for howproposed project and objective sadvocate forautonomy and socialjustice forindividual s and diverse populations ispresenteRationale for howproposed projects and objective sadvocate forautonomy and socialjustice forindividuals and diverse populations are summarized.SomeRationale for howpropose dprojects and objective sadvocate forautonomy and socialjustice forindividuals and diverse populations ispresenteWell-supported rationale for how propose dprojects and objective sadvocate forautonomy and socialjustice forindividuals and diverse populations is   
   d. Advocacy is not established.advocacy is established.d. Advocacy isgenerally established.presented.Advocacy forautonomy and socialjustice forindividuals and diverse populations are clearly established.   
Organization and15.0%        
Effective ness         
Thesis Development and Purpose5.0%Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose ororganizing claim.Thesis is insufficientlydeveloped or vague.Purpose is notclear.Thesis is apparent andappropriate to the purpose.Thesis is clear andforecast s thedevelopment of thepaper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of thearguments andappropriate toThesis is comprehensive and contains theessence of thepaper. Thesis statementnt makes thepurpose of thepaper clear.   
     the purpose.    
Argument Logic and Construction5.0%Statement ofThe purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does notsupport the claim made.Argument isincoherent andSufficient justification of claims is lacking. Arguments lackconsistent unity. There are obvious flaws inthe logic. Some sources have questionableArgument isorderly, but may have a fewinconsistencies.The argumentpresents minimal justification of claims.ArgumentArgument shows logicalprogress ions.Techniques ofargumentationare evident. There is a smooth progression of claimsfromClear and convincingargument thatpresents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compellingmanners. All sources   
  usesnon crediblesources.credibility.logically, but notthoroughly,supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusionbracket the thesis.introduction to conclusi on. Most sources are authoritative.are authoritative.   
Criteria 3 Mechanics ofWriting (includes spelling, punctuation,grammar, language use)5.0%Surface errorsarepervasive enoughthat they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriateword choice or sentence construction is used.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distractthereader. Inconsistencies in language choice(register) , sentence structure, or wordchoice arepresent.Some mechanical errors or typos arepresent, but they are not overlydistracting to the reader.Correctsentence structure andaudience -appropri atelanguage is used.Prose is largelyfree of mechanicalerrors, although a few may be present. A variety ofsentence structure s andeffective figures of speech are used.Writer is clearly in command ofstandard, written, academic English.   
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major andassignment)2.0%Template s are not usedappropriately or documentationformat is rarely followed correctly.Template is used,but some elements aremissing ormistaken ; lack of control with formatting isapparent.Template is used, and formatting iscorrect, although someminor errors may bepresent.Template is fully used;There arevirtually no errors in formatting style.All format elements arecorrect.   
Documentation ofSources (citations,footnote s,reference s,bibliography, etc., asappropriate to assignment and style)3.0%Sources are not documented.Documentation ofsources isinconsistent orincorrect, asappropriate to assignment and style, withnumerous formatting errors.Sources are documented, asappropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may bepresent. t