Explanation from the instructor:It is about writing how each article can back up your statements or...

Question

Explanation from the instructor:It is about writing how each article can back up your statements or your change implementation. Synthetizing the material and applying to your case is the main point for the review. Please reach out to me if you have any other questions. I will be posting examples and furthering your critical thinking skills in the discussion forum. Please Trinabrata Das also pay attention to Rubric, did not get a good grade for the last assignment.Details:The final capstone project is a culmination of the written research-based assignments completed throughout the course. Each written assignment contributes to the final Evidenced-Based Proposal paper. This is the second written assignment.Locate a minimum of 15 peer-reviewed articles that describe the problem or issue and that support the proposed solution. Eight of the 15 articles must be research-based (i.e., a study which is qualitative, quantitative, descriptive, or longitudinal).The "Table of Evidence" document is a tool you can use to organize information from the study articles you have chosen for your literature review. Use this tool as a guide to ensure you have captured the key information that should be incorporated into your literature review narrative.Begin your search for literature by utilizing the any databases between 2005 to date. For example, any online libraryPreview each of the 15 articles chosen by reading the article abstracts and summaries. Article abstracts and summaries provide a concise description of the topic, research outcomes, and significance of findings.	Analysis and AppraisalWrite an analysis and appraisal (1,200-2,000 words): This section should build and support your case, in the reader's mind, of why your problem, purpose, and proposed solution are valid.Remember, you are building an argument to prove your case to do this project; this is not simply an article review.Analyze and appraise the selected articles to support your problem, purpose, and solution. Appraise each article by answering the following questions (one to two sentences is sufficient to answer each question):	How does the article describe the nature of the problem, issue, or deficit you have identified?	Does the article provide statistical information to demonstrate the gravity of the issue, problem, or deficit?	What are some examples of morbidity, mortality, and rate of incidence or rate of occurrence in the general population?	Does the article support your proposed change?Group the analyses based on the content of the articles and the support each article provides for your project.	Incorporating a TheoryIn addition to the review of the literature and theory paper, write a paper of 250-500 words in which you:	Find a theory that will assist you in your implementation or support your solution to your problem.	Describe this theory in simple terms.	Describe why this theory supports your project.	Describe how you will incorporate this theory.	General Requirements:Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.RUBRICReviewing the Literature and Theory										1Unsatisfactory0.00%										2Less than Satisfactory65.00%										3Satisfactory75.00%										4Good85.00%										5Excellent100.00%														70.0 %Content																	20.0 %Literature Review and Supporting Argument						References are not categorized in an appropriately logical manner. Little or no information is given regarding the value of the references in validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.			Presentation does an incomplete job of categorizing project references. Review does a superficial or incomplete job of describing the value of references in validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.			Presentation categorizes information from project references appropriately and incorporates the supporting evidence into an argument that validates the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.			Presentation clearly categorizes and incorporates applicable information from project references and applies the basic research well towards validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project. Collection of references covers most aspects of the project in adequate depth.			Presentation utilizes the categorized information from the references in a clear and comprehensive manner to clearly validate and support the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project; Collection of references is comprehensive and supports all aspects of the project.											20.0 %Critical Analysis of Supporting Data						Argument is more of a literature review than a supporting, critical analysis of the reference contributions to the project.			Argument does not utilize reference information adequately to provide support for why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project are valid. Argument is somewhat vague or incomplete.			Argument uses relevant findings from supporting references to present a basic position as to why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project are valid. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.			Argument uses reference material in an appropriate manner to convince the reader that the problem, purpose, and possible solution are clearly valid. Subject knowledge appears to be good.			Argument is convincing and clearly articulated with adequate supporting references to validate the problem, purpose, and solution of the project. Argument demonstrates thorough subject knowledge and understanding.											20.0 %Incorporation of a Valid Theory to Support the Project						A valid theory to be incorporated in support of the project is not identified or explained, or a theory is improperly stated. Subject knowledge is not demonstrated or is poorly demonstrated.			Identification and explanation of a valid theory to incorporate in support of the project is somewhat vague or incomplete.			A valid theory is identified and a basic explanation is provided of how the theory is incorporated in support of the project. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.			A detailed presentation of the chosen theory is provided. How this theory will be incorporated in support of the project is clearly explained.			A detailed explanation of why the selected theory is the most applicable is provided. Clear plans are provided with supporting examples for incorporating the theory in support of the project.											10.0 %Research Sources (Sources are appropriate, relevant, etc. Also, sources meet assignment quantity and type specifications, including evidence-based resources.)						Sources are not used or cited as required in the assignment instructions. Noncredible sources are used.			Source relevance is vague and/or inconsistent. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are not used. Literature review does not meet required minimum references: 15.			Source relevance is mostly applicable and appropriate. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.			Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.			Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances as well as sparking interest in the reader to pursue further investigation. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.											20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness																	7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose						Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.			Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.			Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.			Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.			Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.											8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction						Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent.			Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.			Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.			Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.			Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.											5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)						Does not meet minimum assigned length; numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in three or more of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure (incomplete sentences; run-on sentences; incorrect subject-verb agreement, etc.).			Does not meet minimum assigned length; repeated specific types of errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar (e.g., paper consistently has subject-verb disagreement); Inappropriate in two of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.			Meets assigned length criteria; Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in one of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.			Meets assigned length criteria; few errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; appropriate in all of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.			Meets assigned length criteria; no major errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; professional appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), professional tone, word choice, and sentence structure; Uses headings to organize paper.											10.0 %Format																	5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)						Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.			Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.			Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.			Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.			All format elements are correct.											5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)						Sources are not documented.			Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.			Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.			Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.			Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Robert · Accepted Answer

Table of Evidence 
 Study 1    Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 
Author Jensen, P. B., 
Jensen, L. J., & 
Brunak, S.  
Hripcsak, G., & 
Albers, D. J. 
Beasley, J. W., & 
Sinsky, C. A. 
Julien , S. P. DesRoches, C. M., 
Charles, D., 
Furukawa, M. F., 
Joshi, M. S., 
Kralovec, P., 
Mostashari, F., Jha, 
A. K. & et al 
Study title Mining electronic 
health records: 
towards better 
research 
applications and 
clinical care 
Next-generation 
phenotyping of 
electronic health 
records 
Electronic health 
records 
Electronic Health 
Records 
Adoption of 
electronic health 
records grows 
rapidly, but fewer 
than half of US 
hospitals had at 
least a basic system 
in 2012 
Research Questions Does EHR holds 
potential to 
establish newer 
principles for 
patient-stratification 
and to reveal 
disease 
correlations? 
What are the trends 
in Next-generation 
phenotyping of 
electronic health 
records? 
What are the trends 
in trends in the EHR 
domain across both 
medical as well as 
the Information 
Technology? 
Identify and review 
EHR related 
practices in United 
States 
What are the trends 
in the adoption of 
EHR in United 
States? 
Design Exploratory / 
Qualitative analysis 
Exploratory / 
Qualitative analysis 
Exploratory / 
Qualitative analysis 
Exploratory / 
Qualitative analysis 
longitudinal survey 
Setting/Sample Secondary research Secondary research Secondary research Secondary research US Health care 
institutions 
Methods: 
intervention/instruments 
Qualitative analysis Qualitative analysis Qualitative analysis Qualitative analysis longitudinal survey 
& Qualitative 
analysis 
Analysis The authors also 
evaluate and offer 
way forward 
pertaining to 
technical, legal and 
ethical reasons 
which currently 
challenge a 
systematic 
deposition for EHR 
as well as their 
mining.
National level 
adoption of EHR 
shall offer 
unprecedented 
levels of data 
accessibility towards 
clinical research and 
enriches the same. 
Documents both the 
significance of need 
to move to an EHR 
based record 
keeping for patient 
details as well as the 
increased drive 
among the industry 
practitioners. 
Undertakes review 
of EHR related 
practices in United 
States in terms of 
the paths and 
approaches 
ventured with 
respect to the 
creation of national 
level system for HER 
Longitudinal survey 
across hospitals in 
United States for 
tracking the manner 
in which they are 
employing and 
applying EHR 
systems. 
Key findings EHR holds potential 
to establish newer 
principles for 
patient-stratification 
and to reveal 
disease correlations 
that are unknown. 
It is a complex task 
and thus study 
identifies that 
newer models that 
learn using these 
data as well as cross 
industry 
collaborations shall 
result in efficient 
usage of valuable 
set of information 
which are currently 
hidden in existing 
health records.
EHR implementation 
is highly essential 
however the 
systems / protocols 
surrounding this 
system has to be 
robust safeguarding 
against unethical 
and security threats. 
Various learnings 
from difficulties 
faced by solution 
providers, 
implementation at 
medical institutions, 
etc., and suitable 
solutions. 
The study finds that 
incentives of 
negative and 
positive nature 
established in 
healthcare system 
across United States 
are operating 
effectively and yet 
notes gaps and need 
for further impetus 
for adoption across 
smaller / rural based 
hospitals. 
Recommendations Integration of EHR 
data to the genetic 
data aiding in giving 
finer level of 
NA NA NA NA 
understanding 
pertaining to 
genotype / 
phenotype 
relationships. 
How this supports 
EBP/Capstone 
Offers 
substantiation and 
basis for EHR 
solution for patient 
record management 
Offers 
substantiation and 
basis for EHR 
solution for patient 
record management 
Offers 
substantiation and 
basis for EHR 
solution for patient 
record management 
Offers 
substantiation and 
basis for EHR 
solution for patient 
record management 
Offers 
substantiation and 
basis for EHR 
solution for patient 
record management
 Study 6   Study 7 Study 8 Study 9 Study 10 
Author Castro, V. M., 
Clements, C. C., 
Murphy, S. N., 
Gainer, V. S.,

Explanation from the instructor: It is about writing how each article can back up your statements or your change implementation. Synthetizing the material and applying to your case is the main point...

Answer To: Explanation from the instructor: It is about writing how each article can back up your statements or...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment

1 Unsatisfactory 0.00%	2 Less than Satisfactory 65.00%	3 Satisfactory 75.00%	4 Good 85.00%	5 Excellent 100.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0 %Literature Review and Supporting Argument	References are not categorized in an appropriately logical manner. Little or no information is given regarding the value of the references in validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.	Presentation does an incomplete job of categorizing project references. Review does a superficial or incomplete job of describing the value of references in validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.	Presentation categorizes information from project references appropriately and incorporates the supporting evidence into an argument that validates the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project.	Presentation clearly categorizes and incorporates applicable information from project references and applies the basic research well towards validating the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project. Collection of references covers most aspects of the project in adequate depth.	Presentation utilizes the categorized information from the references in a clear and comprehensive manner to clearly validate and support the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project; Collection of references is comprehensive and supports all aspects of the project.
20.0 %Critical Analysis of Supporting Data	Argument is more of a literature review than a supporting, critical analysis of the reference contributions to the project.	Argument does not utilize reference information adequately to provide support for why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project are valid. Argument is somewhat vague or incomplete.	Argument uses relevant findings from supporting references to present a basic position as to why the problem, purpose, and proposed solution of the project are valid. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.	Argument uses reference material in an appropriate manner to convince the reader that the problem, purpose, and possible solution are clearly valid. Subject knowledge appears to be good.	Argument is convincing and clearly articulated with adequate supporting references to validate the problem, purpose, and solution of the project. Argument demonstrates thorough subject knowledge and understanding.
20.0 %Incorporation of a Valid Theory to Support the Project	A valid theory to be incorporated in support of the project is not identified or explained, or a theory is improperly stated. Subject knowledge is not demonstrated or is poorly demonstrated.	Identification and explanation of a valid theory to incorporate in support of the project is somewhat vague or incomplete.	A valid theory is identified and a basic explanation is provided of how the theory is incorporated in support of the project. Minimal acceptable details are provided and are mostly applicable to the subject.	A detailed presentation of the chosen theory is provided. How this theory will be incorporated in support of the project is clearly explained.	A detailed explanation of why the selected theory is the most applicable is provided. Clear plans are provided with supporting examples for incorporating the theory in support of the project.
10.0 %Research Sources (Sources are appropriate, relevant, etc. Also, sources meet assignment quantity and type specifications, including evidence-based resources.)	Sources are not used or cited as required in the assignment instructions. Noncredible sources are used.	Source relevance is vague and/or inconsistent. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are not used. Literature review does not meet required minimum references: 15.	Source relevance is mostly applicable and appropriate. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.	Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.	Source relevance is applicable and appropriate in all instances as well as sparking interest in the reader to pursue further investigation. References from appropriate sources (e.g., evidenced-based resources) are used. Literature review meets required minimum references: 15.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.	Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	Does not meet minimum assigned length; numerous errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in three or more of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure (incomplete sentences; run-on sentences; incorrect subject-verb agreement, etc.).	Does not meet minimum assigned length; repeated specific types of errors in spelling, punctuation or grammar (e.g., paper consistently has subject-verb disagreement); Inappropriate in two of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.	Meets assigned length criteria; Occasional errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; Inappropriate in one of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.	Meets assigned length criteria; few errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; appropriate in all of the following: appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), tone, word choice, or sentence structure.	Meets assigned length criteria; no major errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar; professional appearance of document (font size or style, use of white space, use of headings), professional tone, word choice, and sentence structure; Uses headings to organize paper.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.