| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Assignment: Part 1: Key Project Elements In a paper of 6–8 pages, plus cover page and references page, include the following:• Describe the three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project. For each health care setting, identify the following defining features: patient population, mission, public or private entity, single institution or member of a corporation, and others you identify as significant. |
| 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed description of three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with a clear, accurate, and detailed identification of all defining features and others you identify as significant. |
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate description of three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with clear and accurate identification of all defining features; there may not be others identified as significant. |
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate description of three health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with vague and/or inaccurate identification of defining features and no others identified as significant. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague and inaccurate description of three or fewer health care settings that you explored as proposed sites for an EBP QI project, with vague and inaccurate or missing identification of defining features and no others identified as significant. |
|
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Compare the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. Be specific and provide examples. |
| 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response fully synthesizes and integrates at least three scholarly resources that fully support the comparison provided. |
13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response synthesizes and integrates at least two scholarly resources that support the comparison provided. |
11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response somewhat synthesizes and integrates two scholarly resources that may support the comparison provided. |
10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing comparison of the settings for strengths and weaknesses as sites for an EBP QI project. … The response minimally and/or inaccurately synthesizes and integrates one or two scholarly resources or is missing resources. |
|
15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Explain the practice problems that you explored based on your interests and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. |
| 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. |
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. |
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing explanation of the practice problems that you explored based on your interests, and identified needs of the health care settings you investigated. |
|
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Explain why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. Be specific and provide examples. |
| 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response fully synthesizes and integrates at least three scholarly resources that fully support the explanation provided. |
13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response synthesizes and integrates at least two scholarly resources that support the explanation provided. |
11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response somewhat synthesizes and integrates two scholarly resources that may support the explanation provided. |
10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague, inaccurate, or missing explanation of why each problem is a potential focus for an EBP QI project. … The response minimally and/or inaccurately synthesizes and integrates one or two scholarly resources or is missing resources. |
|
15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• For each health care setting, describe the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. |
| 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed description of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. |
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate description of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. |
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate description of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague and inaccurate and/or missing descriptions of the stakeholders whose approval would be required to initiate an EBP QI project and implement the results. |
|
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Compare similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. |
| 15 to >13.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. |
13 to >11.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. |
11 to >10.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. |
10 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague and inaccurate, or missing, comparison of similarities and differences in stakeholder requirements across the settings. |
|
15 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Identify the one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem you have selected as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders, and explain your choices. |
| 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of those choices. |
8 to >7.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a clear and accurate explanation of those choices. |
7 to >6.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague and/or inaccurate identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a vague and/or inaccurate explanation of one or both choices. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague and inaccurate, and/or missing identification of one proposed health care setting/practice site and/or one proposed practice problem as the focus of a hypothetical presentation to stakeholders; and a vague and inaccurate and/or missing explanation of one or both choices. |
|
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeThe Assignment: Part 2: Implementation Science Presentation In a PowerPoint presentation of 3–5 slides, plus cover and references slides, include the following:• Introduce the framework or model you have selected for the EBP QI project and your reasoning. (1–2 slides) |
| 50 to >44.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and clear, accurate, and detailed reasoning. |
44 to >39.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and clear and accurate reasoning. |
39 to >34.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague or inaccurate introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and vague or inaccurate reasoning. |
34 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague and inaccurate or missing introduction of the framework or model you selected for the EBP QI project and vague, inaccurate, or missing reasoning. |
|
50 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome• Present a draft of the proposed practice problem. Include notes for each slide describing points you would make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. (2–3 slides) |
| 50 to >44.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
The response provides a clear, accurate, and detailed presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, including clear, accurate, and detailed notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. |
44 to >39.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
The response provides a clear and accurate presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, including mostly clear and accurate notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. |
39 to >34.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
The response provides a vague or inaccurate presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, including some vague or inaccurate notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. |
34 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
The response provides a vague and inaccurate presentation of a draft of the proposed practice problem, with vague and inaccurate and/or mostly or completely missing notes for each slide describing points to make to the assembled stakeholders to obtain their approval or buy-in for the EBP QI project. |
|
50 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: Paragraph/Sentence StructureParagraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. |
| 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity. |
4 to >3.0 pts
Good 80%–89%
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. |
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. |
2 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. |
|
5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. |
| 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
4 to >3.5 pts
Good 80%–89%
Contains a few (1–2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Contains several (3–4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
|
5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The assignment contains parenthetical/in-text citations, and at least three evidence-based references are listed. |
| 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent 90%–100%
Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least three evidence-based references are listed. |
4 to >3.5 pts
Good 80%–89%
Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least two evidence-based references are listed. |
3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair 70%–79%
Contains parenthetical/in-text citations and at least one evidence-based references are listed. |
3 to >0 pts
Poor 0%–69%
Contains one or no parenthetical/in-text citations and no evidence-based references are listed. |
|
5 pts |
| Total Points: 200 |
