[Solved] Journal Response MODULE 6

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Taking into consideration the three types of necessary CQI planning:

**files (2)**

– ## JournalQuestion_WEEK6.docx

– ## Module6RUBRIC-DNP860.docx

**## JournalQuestion_WEEK6.docx**

Appraising research quality is essential in ensuring that you make changes based on reliable, up-to-date information. Pay attention to what is being said by the researcher while being mindful of the study's design and the steps the researcher took to ensure that they followed tight established protocols to reduce potential bias. As a Doctorate in Nursing Practice (DNP) change agent, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are selecting recent evidence that offers a high level of certainty that the recommendations are valid and worth following. An essential step in writing your literature review is showing the strength of the evidence you have chosen and explaining the rationale for selecting that study to support your recommendation.
**This week, you will build off your Module 2 assignment and dive further into finding sound studies to support your quality improvement project.** You will be crafting an Evidence-Based Table and declaring the strength/quality of those studies. This table will help you develop the literature review that you will be constructing in Module 7.

**Journal Question:**

Many types of continuous quality improvement (CQI) methodologies are available for project implementation. Please ensure your selection is appropriate to healthcare and your project. Some healthcare-appropriate method examples are Lean, Six Sigma, Plan Do Study Act (PDSA), and Baldrige Award Criteria.

Taking into consideration the three types of necessary CQI planning:

1. strategic,

2. operational,

3. project plans,

Reflect on your readings. Explain the continuous quality improvement planning methodology that might be a good fit for carrying out your project. Describe how this method/framework would be used to meet the “project planning” stage of your CQI process.

**Each short-answer Journal response will be a minimum of 300 words.**

**No citation, reference, or APA style is necessary.**

**This is my Topic**

“ This quality improvement project is to implement the use of an evidence-based self-care tool, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA), to improve diabetes self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.”

**Reference**

Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Read chapter 15.

Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Read chapter 15.

**Additional Resources**

Top Tip Bio. (2021).
_How to landscape one page_ [Video]. YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RvJJ-4TF4&t=102s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RvJJ-4TF4&t=102s)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: part III.
_The American Journal of Nursing, 110_(11), 43–51.
[https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5](https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5)

O'Donnell, B., Gupta, V. (2022). Continuous quality improvement.
_StatPearls_.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/)

Fineout-Overhault, E., Mazurek Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Critical Appraisal of the Evidence: Part III.
_American Journal of Nursing, 110_(11).
[https://classroom.aspen.edu/content/enforced/33541-DNP810-MG8-06-12-18/DNP810Modules4%20and%208-Critical%20Appraisal%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Part%20III%20(1).pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=54vJ8eGQmLNBzSZzybxXlJe4N&ou=77571](https://classroom.aspen.edu/content/enforced/33541-DNP810-MG8-06-12-18/DNP810Modules4%20and%208-Critical%20Appraisal%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Part%20III%20(1).pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=54vJ8eGQmLNBzSZzybxXlJe4N&ou=77571&ou=118315)

**## Module6RUBRIC-DNP860.docx**

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1

Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

Content Weight:

30

%

/ 30

0

points

Topic is inappropri

–

ate to assignment,

inaccurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts, unclear and

difficult to under

–

stand; does not ad

–

dress many assign

–

ment requirements.

Information has

weak or no connec

–

tion to the assign

–

ment topic.

21

points

Topic is mostly cov

–

ered and appropri

–

ate to assignment,

but does not ade

–

quately demonstrate

accurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts; mostly clear

and understandable;

lacks some of the

requirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion and/or provides

little detail;

Information relates

to the main topic,

but few details

and/or examples are

given.

points

24

Topic is covered

completely and ap

–

propriate to assign

–

ment; overview of

key concept dimen

–

sions is evident;

clear and under

–

standable; ad

–

dresses all of the re

–

quirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion, with adequate

attention to detail.

30

points

In-depth coverage

of topic; outstand

–

ing clarity and ex

–

planation of con

–

cepts demonstrated

in information pre

–

sented; approaches

assignment with

depth and breadth,

without redundancy,

using clear and fo

–

cused details.

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |

Total

/ 100

Quality of

Written

Communication

Weight: 10%

/ 10

0

points

Style and voice inap

–

propriate or do not

address given audi

–

ence, purpose, etc.

Word choice is ex

–

cessively redundant,

clichéd, and unspe

–

cific. Inconsistent

grammar, spelling,

punctuation, and

paragraphing.

Surface errors are

pervasive enough

that they impede

communication of

meaning.

points

7

Style and voice are

somewhat appropri

–

ate to given audi

–

ence and purpose.

Word choice is of

–

ten unspecific,

generic, redundant,

and clichéd.

Repetitive mechani

–

cal errors distract

the reader.

Inconsistencies in

language, sentence

structure, and/or

word choice are

present.

8

points

Style and voice are

appropriate to the

given audience and

purpose. Word

choice is specific

and purposeful, and

somewhat varied

throughout. Minimal

mechanical or typo

–

graphical errors are

present, but are not

overly distracting to

the reader. Correct

sentence structure

and audience-appro

–

priate language are

used.

points

10

Style and voice are

not only appropriate

to the given audi

–

ence and purpose,

but also show origi

–

nality and creativity.

Word choice is spe

–

cific, purposeful, dy

–

namic and varied.

Free of mechanical

and typographical

errors. A variety of

sentence structures

and effective figures

of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in

command of stan

–

dard, written, aca

–

demic English.

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

4/

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

1/5

**Overall Score**

**Level 1**

0

points minimum

**Level 2**

70

points minimum

**Level 3**

80

points minimum

**Level 4**

100

points minimum

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

**## Module6RUBRIC-DNP860.docx**

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1

Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

Content Weight:

30

%

/ 30

0

points

Topic is inappropri

–

ate to assignment,

inaccurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts, unclear and

difficult to under

–

stand; does not ad

–

dress many assign

–

ment requirements.

Information has

weak or no connec

–

tion to the assign

–

ment topic.

21

points

Topic is mostly cov

–

ered and appropri

–

ate to assignment,

but does not ade

–

quately demonstrate

accurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts; mostly clear

and understandable;

lacks some of the

requirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion and/or provides

little detail;

Information relates

to the main topic,

but few details

and/or examples are

given.

points

24

Topic is covered

completely and ap

–

propriate to assign

–

ment; overview of

key concept dimen

–

sions is evident;

clear and under

–

standable; ad

–

dresses all of the re

–

quirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion, with adequate

attention to detail.

30

points

In-depth coverage

of topic; outstand

–

ing clarity and ex

–

planation of con

–

cepts demonstrated

in information pre

–

sented; approaches

assignment with

depth and breadth,

without redundancy,

using clear and fo

–

cused details.

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |

Total

/ 100

Quality of

Written

Communication

Weight: 10%

/ 10

0

points

Style and voice inap

–

propriate or do not

address given audi

–

ence, purpose, etc.

Word choice is ex

–

cessively redundant,

clichéd, and unspe

–

cific. Inconsistent

grammar, spelling,

punctuation, and

paragraphing.

Surface errors are

pervasive enough

that they impede

communication of

meaning.

points

7

Style and voice are

somewhat appropri

–

ate to given audi

–

ence and purpose.

Word choice is of

–

ten unspecific,

generic, redundant,

and clichéd.

Repetitive mechani

–

cal errors distract

the reader.

Inconsistencies in

language, sentence

structure, and/or

word choice are

present.

8

points

Style and voice are

appropriate to the

given audience and

purpose. Word

choice is specific

and purposeful, and

somewhat varied

throughout. Minimal

mechanical or typo

–

graphical errors are

present, but are not

overly distracting to

the reader. Correct

sentence structure

and audience-appro

–

priate language are

used.

points

10

Style and voice are

not only appropriate

to the given audi

–

ence and purpose,

but also show origi

–

nality and creativity.

Word choice is spe

–

cific, purposeful, dy

–

namic and varied.

Free of mechanical

and typographical

errors. A variety of

sentence structures

and effective figures

of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in

command of stan

–

dard, written, aca

–

demic English.

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

4/

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

1/5

**Overall Score**

**Level 1**

0

points minimum

**Level 2**

70

points minimum

**Level 3**

80

points minimum

**Level 4**

100

points minimum

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

**## JournalQuestion_WEEK6.docx**

Appraising research quality is essential in ensuring that you make changes based on reliable, up-to-date information. Pay attention to what is being said by the researcher while being mindful of the study's design and the steps the researcher took to ensure that they followed tight established protocols to reduce potential bias. As a Doctorate in Nursing Practice (DNP) change agent, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are selecting recent evidence that offers a high level of certainty that the recommendations are valid and worth following. An essential step in writing your literature review is showing the strength of the evidence you have chosen and explaining the rationale for selecting that study to support your recommendation.
**This week, you will build off your Module 2 assignment and dive further into finding sound studies to support your quality improvement project.** You will be crafting an Evidence-Based Table and declaring the strength/quality of those studies. This table will help you develop the literature review that you will be constructing in Module 7.

**Journal Question:**

Many types of continuous quality improvement (CQI) methodologies are available for project implementation. Please ensure your selection is appropriate to healthcare and your project. Some healthcare-appropriate method examples are Lean, Six Sigma, Plan Do Study Act (PDSA), and Baldrige Award Criteria.

Taking into consideration the three types of necessary CQI planning:

1. strategic,

2. operational,

3. project plans,

Reflect on your readings. Explain the continuous quality improvement planning methodology that might be a good fit for carrying out your project. Describe how this method/framework would be used to meet the “project planning” stage of your CQI process.

**Each short-answer Journal response will be a minimum of 300 words.**

**No citation, reference, or APA style is necessary.**

**This is my Topic**

“ This quality improvement project is to implement the use of an evidence-based self-care tool, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA), to improve diabetes self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.”

**Reference**

Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Read chapter 15.

Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Read chapter 15.

**Additional Resources**

Top Tip Bio. (2021).
_How to landscape one page_ [Video]. YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RvJJ-4TF4&t=102s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RvJJ-4TF4&t=102s)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: part III.
_The American Journal of Nursing, 110_(11), 43–51.
[https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5](https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5)

O'Donnell, B., Gupta, V. (2022). Continuous quality improvement.
_StatPearls_.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/)

Fineout-Overhault, E., Mazurek Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Critical Appraisal of the Evidence: Part III.
_American Journal of Nursing, 110_(11).
[https://classroom.aspen.edu/content/enforced/33541-DNP810-MG8-06-12-18/DNP810Modules4%20and%208-Critical%20Appraisal%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Part%20III%20(1).pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=54vJ8eGQmLNBzSZzybxXlJe4N&ou=77571](https://classroom.aspen.edu/content/enforced/33541-DNP810-MG8-06-12-18/DNP810Modules4%20and%208-Critical%20Appraisal%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Part%20III%20(1).pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=54vJ8eGQmLNBzSZzybxXlJe4N&ou=77571&ou=118315)

**## Module6RUBRIC-DNP860.docx**

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1

Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

Content Weight:

30

%

/ 30

0

points

Topic is inappropri

–

ate to assignment,

inaccurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts, unclear and

difficult to under

–

stand; does not ad

–

dress many assign

–

ment requirements.

Information has

weak or no connec

–

tion to the assign

–

ment topic.

21

points

Topic is mostly cov

–

ered and appropri

–

ate to assignment,

but does not ade

–

quately demonstrate

accurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts; mostly clear

and understandable;

lacks some of the

requirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion and/or provides

little detail;

Information relates

to the main topic,

but few details

and/or examples are

given.

points

24

Topic is covered

completely and ap

–

propriate to assign

–

ment; overview of

key concept dimen

–

sions is evident;

clear and under

–

standable; ad

–

dresses all of the re

–

quirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion, with adequate

attention to detail.

30

points

In-depth coverage

of topic; outstand

–

ing clarity and ex

–

planation of con

–

cepts demonstrated

in information pre

–

sented; approaches

assignment with

depth and breadth,

without redundancy,

using clear and fo

–

cused details.

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |

Total

/ 100

Quality of

Written

Communication

Weight: 10%

/ 10

0

points

Style and voice inap

–

propriate or do not

address given audi

–

ence, purpose, etc.

Word choice is ex

–

cessively redundant,

clichéd, and unspe

–

cific. Inconsistent

grammar, spelling,

punctuation, and

paragraphing.

Surface errors are

pervasive enough

that they impede

communication of

meaning.

points

7

Style and voice are

somewhat appropri

–

ate to given audi

–

ence and purpose.

Word choice is of

–

ten unspecific,

generic, redundant,

and clichéd.

Repetitive mechani

–

cal errors distract

the reader.

Inconsistencies in

language, sentence

structure, and/or

word choice are

present.

8

points

Style and voice are

appropriate to the

given audience and

purpose. Word

choice is specific

and purposeful, and

somewhat varied

throughout. Minimal

mechanical or typo

–

graphical errors are

present, but are not

overly distracting to

the reader. Correct

sentence structure

and audience-appro

–

priate language are

used.

points

10

Style and voice are

not only appropriate

to the given audi

–

ence and purpose,

but also show origi

–

nality and creativity.

Word choice is spe

–

cific, purposeful, dy

–

namic and varied.

Free of mechanical

and typographical

errors. A variety of

sentence structures

and effective figures

of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in

command of stan

–

dard, written, aca

–

demic English.

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

4/

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

1/5

**Overall Score**

**Level 1**

0

points minimum

**Level 2**

70

points minimum

**Level 3**

80

points minimum

**Level 4**

100

points minimum

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

**## JournalQuestion_WEEK6.docx**

Appraising research quality is essential in ensuring that you make changes based on reliable, up-to-date information. Pay attention to what is being said by the researcher while being mindful of the study's design and the steps the researcher took to ensure that they followed tight established protocols to reduce potential bias. As a Doctorate in Nursing Practice (DNP) change agent, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are selecting recent evidence that offers a high level of certainty that the recommendations are valid and worth following. An essential step in writing your literature review is showing the strength of the evidence you have chosen and explaining the rationale for selecting that study to support your recommendation.
**This week, you will build off your Module 2 assignment and dive further into finding sound studies to support your quality improvement project.** You will be crafting an Evidence-Based Table and declaring the strength/quality of those studies. This table will help you develop the literature review that you will be constructing in Module 7.

**Journal Question:**

Many types of continuous quality improvement (CQI) methodologies are available for project implementation. Please ensure your selection is appropriate to healthcare and your project. Some healthcare-appropriate method examples are Lean, Six Sigma, Plan Do Study Act (PDSA), and Baldrige Award Criteria.

Taking into consideration the three types of necessary CQI planning:

1. strategic,

2. operational,

3. project plans,

Reflect on your readings. Explain the continuous quality improvement planning methodology that might be a good fit for carrying out your project. Describe how this method/framework would be used to meet the “project planning” stage of your CQI process.

**Each short-answer Journal response will be a minimum of 300 words.**

**No citation, reference, or APA style is necessary.**

**This is my Topic**

“ This quality improvement project is to implement the use of an evidence-based self-care tool, Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA), to improve diabetes self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes.”

**Reference**

Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Read chapter 15.

Schmidt, N. A., & Brown, J. M. (2021).
_Evidence-based practice for nurses: Appraisal and application of research_ (5th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning. IBSN:978-1-274-22632-4. Read chapter 15.

**Additional Resources**

Top Tip Bio. (2021).
_How to landscape one page_ [Video]. YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RvJJ-4TF4&t=102s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RvJJ-4TF4&t=102s)

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: part III.
_The American Journal of Nursing, 110_(11), 43–51.
[https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5](https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5)

O'Donnell, B., Gupta, V. (2022). Continuous quality improvement.
_StatPearls_.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/)

Fineout-Overhault, E., Mazurek Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Critical Appraisal of the Evidence: Part III.
_American Journal of Nursing, 110_(11).
[https://classroom.aspen.edu/content/enforced/33541-DNP810-MG8-06-12-18/DNP810Modules4%20and%208-Critical%20Appraisal%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Part%20III%20(1).pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=54vJ8eGQmLNBzSZzybxXlJe4N&ou=77571](https://classroom.aspen.edu/content/enforced/33541-DNP810-MG8-06-12-18/DNP810Modules4%20and%208-Critical%20Appraisal%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Part%20III%20(1).pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=54vJ8eGQmLNBzSZzybxXlJe4N&ou=77571&ou=118315)

**## Module6RUBRIC-DNP860.docx**

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1

Course: DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

Content Weight:

30

%

/ 30

0

points

Topic is inappropri

–

ate to assignment,

inaccurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts, unclear and

difficult to under

–

stand; does not ad

–

dress many assign

–

ment requirements.

Information has

weak or no connec

–

tion to the assign

–

ment topic.

21

points

Topic is mostly cov

–

ered and appropri

–

ate to assignment,

but does not ade

–

quately demonstrate

accurate under

–

standing of con

–

cepts; mostly clear

and understandable;

lacks some of the

requirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion and/or provides

little detail;

Information relates

to the main topic,

but few details

and/or examples are

given.

points

24

Topic is covered

completely and ap

–

propriate to assign

–

ment; overview of

key concept dimen

–

sions is evident;

clear and under

–

standable; ad

–

dresses all of the re

–

quirements of the

assignment descrip

–

tion, with adequate

attention to detail.

30

points

In-depth coverage

of topic; outstand

–

ing clarity and ex

–

planation of con

–

cepts demonstrated

in information pre

–

sented; approaches

assignment with

depth and breadth,

without redundancy,

using clear and fo

–

cused details.

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |

| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |

Total

/ 100

Quality of

Written

Communication

Weight: 10%

/ 10

0

points

Style and voice inap

–

propriate or do not

address given audi

–

ence, purpose, etc.

Word choice is ex

–

cessively redundant,

clichéd, and unspe

–

cific. Inconsistent

grammar, spelling,

punctuation, and

paragraphing.

Surface errors are

pervasive enough

that they impede

communication of

meaning.

points

7

Style and voice are

somewhat appropri

–

ate to given audi

–

ence and purpose.

Word choice is of

–

ten unspecific,

generic, redundant,

and clichéd.

Repetitive mechani

–

cal errors distract

the reader.

Inconsistencies in

language, sentence

structure, and/or

word choice are

present.

8

points

Style and voice are

appropriate to the

given audience and

purpose. Word

choice is specific

and purposeful, and

somewhat varied

throughout. Minimal

mechanical or typo

–

graphical errors are

present, but are not

overly distracting to

the reader. Correct

sentence structure

and audience-appro

–

priate language are

used.

points

10

Style and voice are

not only appropriate

to the given audi

–

ence and purpose,

but also show origi

–

nality and creativity.

Word choice is spe

–

cific, purposeful, dy

–

namic and varied.

Free of mechanical

and typographical

errors. A variety of

sentence structures

and effective figures

of speech are used.

Writer is clearly in

command of stan

–

dard, written, aca

–

demic English.

4/12/26, 8:43 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP860 Sect1 Evidence-Based Practice for Quality Improvement – Aspen University Classroom

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

4/

Criteria

**Does Not Meet 0%**

**Approaches 70%**

**Meets 80%**

**Exceeds 100%**

**Criterion Score**

1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

1/5

**Overall Score**

**Level 1**

0

points minimum

**Level 2**

70

points minimum

**Level 3**

80

points minimum

**Level 4**

100

points minimum

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5

https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/118315/viewContent/6269462/View 1/5