the writer must be able to understand research. as you have to appraise two articles which I have provided and then follow the instructions provided as well as the rubric. I am a nursing student. referencing is APA 7.
NSG2NMR 2020 Assessment 2 Assessment 2 (40%). Individual Written Report (1,750 words) Topic Critique the two papers listed in the assessment tile on LMS. You will need to locate the full text of the papers. These papers should then be critiqued and an essay written in which you compare and contrast the two research articles by: • Describing the paper’s aim, method, results and conclusions, and • Discussing the internal validity, external validity, and measurement validity AND/OR rigor/trustworthiness of each paper. Once you have critically appraised each paper, you should consider what these two papers contribute, relative to each other, to the clinical issue being considered. Length 1,750 words (+/-10%) • In-text references are included in word count. • Reference list is excluded from the word count. Value 40% of the total marks for NSG2NMR SILOS 2, 3, 5 Due date 0900, 7 September 2020 Format Essay format (specific student first name, surname, student ID, facilitator name, clinical school, on either the first page or in the footer of document) References References should be in APA 7th referencing style. Articles: Students should critique the two papers listed on the LMS under Assessment 2. General Instructions for Assessment 2 The SILOs associated with this assessment task include SILOs 2, 3, & 5 For further clarification of the grading criteria and mark allocation, refer to the Assessment 2 rubric. Submission: To Turnitin via the LMS site for NSG2NMR. You do NOT require a coversheet for this assignment. • Penalties as per the La Trobe University Policy will be incurred after the due date/time. • Applications for extension must be received 72 hours (3 days) prior to the due date/time. • In accordance with University policy, because this assessment is worth more than 20%, it is eligible for remarking. Applications for remarking must be submitted within 10 days after the release of the final Assessment 3 grade Originality: The assessment should be a product of individual and original work. You may discuss the assessment with other students and your facilitator whilst you are in the process of developing an understanding of how you will interpret the topic, but each student is expected to submit an individual assessment. Refer to the University webpage on academic integrity (https://policies.latrobe.edu.au/document/view.php?id=221&version=1 ) Turnitin: The University uses text matching software, Turnitin, to analyse similarity between published material and student assignments. The software also matches to other student assignments. All students are required to submit their individual assessment to Turnitin, by the due date/time; assessments will not be graded until the Turnitin report is available. You will have an opportunity to submit assessment drafts to Turnitin to check the similarity index for issues with paraphrasing and citation, and make amendments if required, before finalising the assessment by the due date/time. Your assessment must be submitted to Turnitin via the LMS site for NSG2NMR and under your own access code (otherwise it will be attributed to the person who logged onto the LMS site). The report on your first submission will be available almost immediately, but reports on subsequent submissions can take 24 hours to process. Document format: The assignment should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document using the template provided. Turnitin will NOT accept Pages documents (i.e., the format created on Macs). Please convert your file format if you need to. Penalties: Late submissions shall be penalised in accordance with La Trobe University’s policy and procedure on ‘Late Submission of Tasks’ (https://policies.latrobe.edu.au/document/view.php?id=148&version=1) . All assignments received more than FIVE days after the due date/time will not be accepted. A score of '0' will be recorded. The assignment will NOT be marked. Assignments submitted within FIVE days of the due date/time will have the penalty subtracted after the assignment grade has been determined. Weekend days, public holidays, and University holidays are not counted as days overdue. Penalties for late work that has had no prior approved extension will be calculated as follows: Submission by due date/time: no penalty • Within 24 hrs (1 day) after the assignment was due: subtract 5 marks • Within 48 hrs (2 days) after the assignment was due: subtract 10 marks • Within 72 hrs (3 days) after the assignment was due: subtract 15 marks • Within 96 hrs (4 days) after the assignment was due: subtract 20 marks • Within 120 hrs (5 days) after the assignment was due: subtract 25 marks After 120 hrs (5 days) after the assignment was due: not accepted. Not graded. Score of '0' given. Penalties do not apply to approved extensions. Application for Extensions: Extensions need to be applied for within 72 hours (3 days) of the due date (and time). Weekend days, public holidays, and University holidays will not be counted within the 72 hours - you must allow a full 3 working days to process your application. Applications are to be submitted online - no paper submissions will be accepted. Students with a Learning Access Plan (LAP) and Elite Athletes who require an extension still need to complete this request if an extension is required so we can be informed of your submission intention. An extension is not automatically granted. You will receive a reply from a member of the Subject Coordination team about the outcome of your extension so that you can plan accordingly. If an extension is granted, the late submission policy and same penalties will apply to the revised due date. Remark procedure: All assignments that receive a score of less than 50% will be remarked. This is indicated in your general comments. Additionally, members of the teaching and coordination team moderate some assignments for each facilitator to ensure consistency across the subject. If your assignment has been moderated, this will be indicated in your general comments. Students can request a remark for assignments worth 20% or more of their grade for the subject. Re- marks must be sought with good reason. The University has formal policies and procedures regarding the re-mark of student work at the student’s request. The process to be followed to seek a remark is as follows: 1. First, discuss your queries or concerns about the grading of your assignment with the person who marked your paper. Contact your assessor by email to organise a meeting or phone discussion. The review must take place within 10 working days of the publication of the result. The assessor will discuss your performance in the assessment task with reference to the grading criteria and will also check that the result has been calculated correctly but will not re-mark the work. This is an opportunity for you to understand why you have gained or lost marks, not to negotiate a different mark. 2. If you are not satisfied with the response at this meeting then you have a further 10 working days to apply in writing to the Subject Coordinator (Dr Charne Miller) for a re-mark of the assignment. The application for re-mark must: • Include evidence that the assignment has been reviewed by the assessor • Report the result of the review • Explain the grounds on which the re-mark is sought. A student may request a re-mark of an assessable piece of work only on the grounds that the original assessment: i) was biased; or ii) failed to follow the published assessment criteria or grading scheme for the assessment task. The student must provide evidence to support the grounds claimed. Access to the University Procedure is via this link: https://policies.latrobe.edu.au/document/view.php?id=207 Nurses' experiences with newly acquired knowledge about medication management: A qualitative study J Nurs Manag. 2019;27:1731–1737. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jonm | 1731© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 | BACKGROUND Nurses play a key role in ensuring patient management, particularly regarding medication preparation and administration, which are where most errors occur (Harkanen, Ahonen, Kervinen, Turunen, & Vehvilainen‐Julkunen, 2015). Consequently, Norway and other countries have introduced a variety of training programmes to de‐ velop nurses' postgraduate skills further (Berdot et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2014). Professional nursing skills include acquiring different types of knowledge and implementing this new knowledge appropriately in clinical practice. Thus, their skills include at least two dimen‐ sions: understanding and quality. An individual's knowledge is also based on their skills in relation to their roles, tasks and situations. Therefore, quality factors are also assessed in relation to work duties (McLellan, de Bruin, Tully, & Dorman, 2016). High‐quality health care requires that health care personnel possess both the knowledge and ability to meet today's service de‐ mands (Randolph et al., 2012). Having knowledge and abilities also increases nurses' understanding of and confidence in performing their clinical tasks. The knowledge that nurses acquire through an obligatory medication management programme (MMP), as well as Received:15January2019 | Revised:22August2019 | Accepted:3September2019 DOI: 10.1111/jonm.12864 O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E Nurses' experiences with newly acquired knowledge about medication management: A qualitative study Grete Høghaug RN1 | Randi Skår PhD, RN2 | Thien Ngoc Tran PhD, MSc pharm3 | Inger Schou-Bredal PhD, RN4,5 1Department of Medicine, Health and Development, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway 2FacultyofHealthandSocial sciences, Western Norway University of AppliedSciences,Bergen,Norway 3HospitalpharmacyEnterprises,South Eastern Norway, Norway 4Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway 5InstituteforHealthandSociety,University in Oslo, Oslo, Norway Correspondence Grete Høghaug, Department of Medicine, Health and Development, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Email: grehog@ous‐hf.no Abstract Objective: To investigate nurses' experiences with implementation of knowledge gained through an obligatory medication management programme (MMP). Background: Lack of knowledge among nurses is an important contributor to medi‐ cation management errors. Therefore, training programmes such as the MMP were established to help nurses acquire and refine their practice skills. Method: This was a qualitative study using semistructured interviews and themati‐ cally analysed data. Results: The nurses felt that medication