course materials

1. Discussion: Searching Databases
Discussion: Searching DatabasesDiscussion: Searching DatabasesWhen you decide to
purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability
are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on
color options and sound systems.CLICK HERE TO ORDER YOUR ASSIGNMENTThe same
holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and
professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that
addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is
the PICO(T) format.In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable
question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and
efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to
increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.
Discussion: Searching DatabasesTo Prepare:Review the materials offering guidance on
using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided
in the Resources.Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of
interest to you for further study.BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4Post your PICO(T) question, the
search terms used, and the names of at least two databases used for your PICO(T) question.
Then, describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original
research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators.
Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a
database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples. Discussion:
Searching DatabasesBY DAY 6 OF WEEK 4Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two
different days and provide further suggestions on how their database search might be
improved.SUBMISSION AND GRADING INFORMATIONGrading CriteriaTo access your
rubric:Week 4 DiscussionGrid ViewList ViewExcellentGoodFairPoorMain
Posting45 (45%) – 50 (50%)Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations
with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings
for the module and current credible sources. ed by at least three current, credible
sources.Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully
adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.40 (40%) – 44 (44%)Responds to
the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge
gained from the course readings for the module.At least 75% of post has exceptional depth
and breadth. ed by at least three credible sources.Written clearly and concisely with one or
no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules

2. and style.35 (35%) – 39 (39%)Responds to some of the discussion question(s).One or two
criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.Is somewhat lacking reflection and
critical analysis and synthesis.Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course
readings for the module.Post is cited with two credible sources.Written somewhat
concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Contains some APA
formatting errors.0 (0%) – 34 (34%)Does not respond to the discussion question(s)
adequately.Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.Lacks reflection and critical
analysis and synthesis.Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for
the module.Contains only one or no credible sources.Not written clearly or
concisely.Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Does not adhere to
current APA manual writing rules and style.Main Post: Timeliness10 (10%) –
10 (10%)Posts main post by day 3.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does
not post by day 3.First Response17 (17%) – 18 (18%)Response exhibits synthesis, critical
thinking, and application to practice settings.Responds fully to questions posed by
faculty.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are ed by at least two scholarly
sources.Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.Communication
is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty questions are fully
answered, if posed.Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.15 (15%) –
16 (16%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings.Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty
questions are answered, if posed.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are ed by
two or more credible sources.Response is effectively written in standard, edited
English.13 (13%) – 14 (14%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.Responses
posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.Responses to
faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.Response may lack clear, concise
opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.0 (0%) – 12 (12%)Response
may not be on topic and lacks depth.Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
professional communication.Responses to faculty questions are missing.No credible sources
are cited.Second Response16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Response exhibits synthesis, critical
thinking, and application to practice settings.Responds fully to questions posed by
faculty.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are ed by at least two scholarly
sources.Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.Communication
is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty questions are fully
answered, if posed.Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.14 (14%) –
15 (15%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings.Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty
questions are answered, if posed.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are ed by
two or more credible sources.Response is effectively written in standard, edited
English.12 (12%) – 13 (13%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.Responses
posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.Responses to
faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.Response may lack clear, concise
opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.0 (0%) – 11 (11%)Response
may not be on topic and lacks depth.Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

3. professional communication.Responses to faculty questions are missing.No credible sources
are cited.Participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements for participation by posting on
three different days.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not meet
requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.Total Points: 100Name:
NURS_Required ReadingsMelnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based
practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA:
Wolters Kluwer.Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)Chapter 3,
“Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)Davies, K. S. (2011).
Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS
professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80.
https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N. Retrieved from
https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EB…Note: You will access this article from
the Walden Library databases.Library of Congress. (n.d.). Search/browse help – Boolean
operators and nesting. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from
https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help…Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E.,
Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking
the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing,
110(3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79. Retrieved from
https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/0…Note: You will access this article
from the Walden Library databases.Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., &
Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry.
American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58.
Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/fulltext/2009/1…Note: You will access
this article from the Walden Library databases.Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk,
B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the
evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41–47.
doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e. Retrieved from
https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/0…Note: You will access this article
from the Walden Library databases.Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z:
Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981Walden University Library. (n.d.-b).
Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthe…