Assessment three builds on your work in the discussion boards (Assessment 2). For this assessment, you will be evaluating
four
recent journal articles related to your clinical question. You will do this by summarising and evaluating the articles in an annotated bibliography.
Weight:50%
Length:2500 words
Due date:
Week 12,Sunday 8th October 2023, 23:30:00ACST
Learning outcomes:1., 2., 3., 4.
Assessment task 3: Written report - annotated bibliography Assessment description: Assessment 3 builds on your work in the discussion boards (Assessment 2). For this assessment, you will be evaluating four recent journal articles related to your clinical question. You will do this by summarising and evaluating the articles in an annotated bibliography. • Weight: 50% • Length: 2500 words±10% • Due date: Week 12, Sunday 8th October 2023, 23:59:00 ACST • Learning outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4. Assessment instructions: Using what you have learned from modules 1-6 create a report on an annotated bibliography based on the topic selected in assignment 2. The report needs to contain: Structure of the written assessment: Section suggestions Introduction/background • briefly introduce the background information of the topic and the outline of this assignment • 200-250 words The main body of the annotated bibliography (4 x relevant and current research articles) • using four separate paragraphs to evaluate the four selected research articles, the following elements should be addressed: (1) What was the study design of the article: qualitative or quantitative? And which type of qualitative or quantitative study? (2) What was the aim of the research? (3) How was the study conducted? (4) What were the results of the study and did the study answer the study question/aim? (5) What are the methodological strengths and limitations of the study? (6) How can further improve the methodological quality of the study? • 2000 words Conclusion • Overall statement on the applicability of the evaluated articles to clinical practice • 200-300 words Please note: • Using APA 7th reference style • References list is not included in the word count • Academic writing, 1st person is NOT acceptable in the annotated bibliography assessment • An example of an annotated bibliography has been provided to guide your submission format. Criteria: • Knowledge of the underpinning principles and theories of research • Demonstrate an ability to locate and select appropriate literature to answer a healthcare question • Show critical thinking concerning the selected articles and develop a coherent argument for how they address the specified research question • Apply academic convention to develop a clear and logical argument within the word limit (+/-10%) Page 1 of 1 MARKING RUBRIC - WRITTEN ASSESSMENT - NUR256 – Assessment 3 College of Nursing and Midwifery Exceptional Advanced Proficient Functional Developing Knowledge 25% Mastery of content Substantial knowledge of fundamental concepts in the field of study. Good knowledge of fundamental concepts in the field of study. Adequate knowledge of fundamental concepts in the field of study. Deficiencies in understanding the fundamental concepts in the field of study Critical analysis 25% Expert and critical evaluation of data, cases, problems and their solutions and implications Critical evaluation of data, cases, problems and their solutions and implications Considered evaluation of data, cases, problems and their solutions and implications Identifies data, cases, problems and their solutions and implications Inability to identify data, cases, problems and their solutions and implications Argument 25% Significant and sophisticated insights in identifying, generating and synthesising competing arguments or perspectives Perceptive insights in identifying, generating and synthesising competing arguments or perspectives Develops or adapts convincing argument and provide coherent justification Develop routine arguments or decisions Presents inappropriate or unsupported arguments Communication 20% Masters the conventions of the discipline to communicate at an expert level Uses the conventions of the discipline to communicate at a professional level Uses the conventions of the discipline to communicate at an effective level Uses some of the conventions of the discipline to communicate appropriately Communicates information or ideas in ways that are frequently incomplete, confusing and not appropriate to the conventions of the discipline Academic convention 5 % Excellent discrimination of sources, referencing consistent and all presentation requirements followed Thorough discrimination of sources, referencing consistent and all presentation requirements followed Skillful discrimination of sources, referencing some inconsistency and presentation requirements followed Weak discrimination of sources, inconsistent referencing and presentation requirements not adhered to Poor discrimination of sources, referencing is missing or have major flaws and presentation requirements not adhered to Smith, Z., & Hawthorn. (2018). Below knee TED stockings compared to thigh high stocking in preventing DVT. Hospital, 6(32), 99-34. Doi: 1564ert9g34u59g3 Smith and Hawthorn used a quantitative study design to compare the effectiveness of below- knee ted stockings to thigh high stocking in preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalised patients. The authors argued that there was very little evidence supporting the use of thigh high stockings and that their use was associated with more complications such as pressure injuries. In this study, the authors used a randomised controlled trial design and patients were randomly allocated to receive either the below-knee or thigh-high TED stockings. All patients admitted to a surgical ward were approached to participate in the study. A total of 2034 patients were recruited into this study out of 3000 patients approached to participate. The study protocol involved patients wearing the stockings during the day and night and were only to be removed during showering. Patients were monitored for DVTs during their hospitalisation, and the frequency of DVTs was compared between the two groups. The results from this study showed no significant difference between rates of DVT in patients who were allocated below-knee stocking and thigh high stockings. Smith and Hawthorn also report that 48 patients who were allocated thigh high stockings developed complications, ranging from mild irritation to more serious pressure injuries. No such complications were reported in the below- knee stocking group. The study by Smith and Hawthorn has several strengths. Firstly, it’s one of the few studies to compare below-knee stockings to thigh high stockings, which helps to add to the evidence base supporting their use. Secondly, this study used a large study population which helps to build confidence in the study outcomes. Unfortunately, there are several limitations to this study that need to be acknowledged. Firstly, it is unclear whether true randomisation of study participants occurred as this is not described in the research article. When randomisation does not occur, this can introduce bias into the results. Secondly, only surgical patients were used in this study, which means the results could not be easily generalised to other populations such as medical or paediatric patients. Lastly, there is no description of how the researchers ensured patients adhered to the study protocol, which means it is possible some patients did not wear their stockings all the time. Overall this article adds to the growing body of research supporting the use of below-knee TED stockings, but due to the limitations mentioned, stronger evidence is needed to support a practice change.