Methodologies on demand
Methodologies on demand
- View one of the three Institute for Healthcare Improvement On Demand Presentations listed below. Write a 1 – 2 page, double-spaced paper summarizing key points from the selected presentation. Include a statement about (1) the purpose of the presentation, (2) the evidence that was presented, and (3) a conclusion about how you may be able to use the evidence in your area of Doctorate in Nursing Practice scholarship. Organization and quality of writing will be evaluated. Review the On Demand Presentation Grading Rubric for grading criteria.
On Demand: Using Run and Control Charts to Understand VariationLinks to an external site.
The topics addressed in Dr. Lloyd’s 55-minute presentation include:
- Statistical Process Control
- Elements of run charts
- Nonrandom rules
- Shewhart (control) charts
- Types of variation: Common cause, special cause
- Control chart selection
On Demand: Building Skills in Data Collection and Understanding VariationLinks to an external site.
The topics addressed in Dr. Lloyd’s 50-minute presentation include:
- The three faces of performance measurement
- The quality measurement journey
- Data collection strategies
- Stratification
- Sampling
- Understanding variation
- Common cause variation
- Special cause variation
- Analyzing variation
- Run charts
- Control charts
On Demand: An Introduction to the Model of ImprovementLinks to an external site.
The following topics are addressed in Dr. Lloyd’s 56-minute presentation:
- Applied science
- The Model for Improvement: The three questions:
- What are we trying to accomplish?
- Developing an aim statement
- Exercise #1: Aim statement
- How do we know that a change is an improvement?
- Exercise #2: Operational definitions
- What changes can we make that will result in improvement?
- What are we trying to accomplish?
- Change concepts
- Exercise #3: Developing change concepts
- PDSA cycles
Methodologies on demand
Institute for Healthcare Improvement On Demand Presentation Grading Rubric
NUR 3031: Methodologies for Doctor of Nursing Practice Projects
| Name: |
| Criteria | Mastery (4)
Points _________ |
Meets Expectations (3)
Points__________ |
Developing (2)
Points_________ |
Emerging (1)
Points_______ |
| Statement of purpose:
1 point -Clearly and succinctly stated |
Skillfully defines the scope of the topic
1.00 point |
Purpose is clear, but slight revision would enhance clarity for reader
.75 point |
Purpose of the paper is vague
.50 point |
Reader comes away from paper with little understanding of paper’s purpose
.25 point |
| Organization of the paper:
1 point -Writing is logically coherent, no gaps -Flow of paragraphs to paragraphs and sentences to sentences |
Extremely coherent and cohesive flow of ideas
1.00 point |
The flow of ideas is generally coherent and cohesive, although minor edits could enhance readability
.75 point |
The flow of ideas is sometimes lacking coherence and/or cohesion, which impedes readability
.50 point |
Flow of ideas is incoherent and/or lacking cohesion, which confuses the reader
.25 point |
| Use of Evidence:
1 point -Evidence is appropriate and relevant -Used to support ideas Higher level: -Recognize limitation of evidence -Spot deception/holes in others’ arguments |
Evidence is completely relevant and synthesized in a way that fully achieves the purpose of the paper
1.00 point |
Evidence is relevant but not adequately synthesized
.75 point |
Some evidence is not relevant and not fully synthesized to support the purpose of the paper
.50 point |
Evidence provided does not address purpose of the paper
.25 point |
| Conclusions
1 point -Evidence and ideas are integrated to support a conclusion (e.g., intervention, procedure, solution to problem, reason for an action, a new model, etc.) -Make recommendations |
Conclusion flows from synthesis of evidence and consistent with the purpose of the paper
1.00 point |
Does not fully reflect the synthesis of the evidence, but consistent with the purpose of the paper
Overstated or unstated some parts of the conclusion .75 point |
Conclusion is not consistent with the synthesis of evidence or does not entirely address the purpose
Overstated or unstated the conclusion .50 point |
No concluding statements consistent with evidence or purpose
.25 point |
| Quality of writing:
1 point -Effective use of grammar, punctuation, syntax, mechanics and conventions of style (if applicable) to promote readability and reader engagement |
Writing is virtually free of errors
1.00 point |
Writing contains minor errors that do not impede meaning
.75 point |
Writing contains several errors that affect clarity of evidence and ideas presented
.50 point |
Writing contains many errors that make it difficult to understand the ideas
.25 point |
Methodologies on demand
