Reference must be less than 10 years please Scenario 1:

Reference must be less than 10 years please Scenario 1: You are a nurse who is part of a team that includes families and carers that is investigating delirium screening and management plans. The delirium screening and management plan you are investigating focuses on non-pharmacological interventions. As part of the project, you are involved in the critical appraisal of the current evidence on non-pharmaceutical screening and management for delirium. The problem: Delirium is a preventable syndrome characterised by a temporary condition of acute confusion of varied duration. Delirium can lead to adverse patient outcomes that include falls, Hospital Acquired Pressure Injuries and Residential Aged Care Facility entry. The Question: Does a bundle of non-pharmacological interventions perform as well as current standard interventions in the management of people with delirium? You have been asked to critically appraise the following article. To do this read the article and then respond to questions 1 to 9 below. Use the below article to answer the question Article for scenario one: Article 2: Green, A., Hosie, A., Phillips, J. L., Kochovska, S., Noble, B., Brassil, M., Cumming, A., Lawlor, P. G., Bush, S. H., Davis, J. M., Edwards, L., Hunt, J., Wilcock, J., Phillipson, C., Wesley Ely, E., Parr, C., Lovell, M., & Agar, M. (2022). Stakeholder perspectives of a pilot multicomponent delirium prevention intervention for adult patients with advanced cancer in palliative care units: A behaviour change theory-based qualitative study. Palliative Medicine, 36(8), 1273-1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163221113163 Part 1: Critically appraise one research article Part 1 of this assessment is a critical appraisal of one research article. This critical appraisal will involve the identification and analysis of the article’s hierarchy of evidence, validity, trustworthiness, value and relevance. Part 1 will consist of 9 questions. All 9 questions must be answered. Critical Appraisal for Research Article Questions 1-9 are to be answered about the provided research article for your chosen clinical scenario. Hierarchy of Evidence Question 1: What level does this article fall under on the hierarchy of evidence? Explain why this level is considered a high or low level of evidence. (Approximately 60-80 words) Answer: Validity Question 2: What was the problem identified by the researchers? What were the aims of the research? (write the aims as they are stated in the article) (Approximately 60-80) Answer: Question 3: To help you understand the key focus of the study, identify the research question as a broken down into a simple PICO. P I C O Question 4: What was the research design? Justify why the design selected was appropriate, or not, in answering the research question. (Approximately 60-80 words) Answer: Question 5: Data Collection – What data collection methods were used in the study? Discuss if these methods were appropriate in achieving the aims of the study. As part of this answer, you need to discuss the tools used to collect data, how these aligned with the methodology (research design), how the researchers ensured content was appropriate, the validity of the tool, and how the tool was designed or tested) (120 words). Answer: Question 6: Recruitment – In the case of a quantitative or qualitative study, how were participants recruited for the study; and how many participants were recruited? What justification was provided for the sample size? OR in the case of a Systematic Review/Meta-analysis article: How many papers were collected? What was the inclusion criteria? (Approximately 60-80 words) Answer: Trustworthiness Question 7: What data analytic techniques were used? For example, Quantitative study: discuss statistical analysis and list the statistical tests used to analyse the data. Qualitative study: identify the type of analysis described and the quality control steps discussed. For a Systematic Review/Meta-analysis article: how were the papers reviewed, how did they ensure consensus for the inclusion/exclusion criteria, what further analysis was explored in this evaluation of studies? (Approximately 60-80 words) Answer: Question 8: Summarise the conclusions drawn from this research and justify their relevance to the research question. (Approximately 60-80 words) Answer: Value and Relevance Question 9: This question requires you to reflect on your chosen scenario, clinical problem and EBP project.Justify whether the results of the reviewed article are generalisable and relevant to your EBP project. (Approximately 60-80) Answer: Part 2: Integrating patient preferences and clinical expertise Part 2 includes questions 10-11 below. Part 2 relates to the integration of patient preferences into a chosen clinical scenario – scenario 2 below. Scenario 1 You are caring for Carl Shapiro, a 62-year-old man a recent history of acute coronary syndrome, which resulted in an interventional coronary angiogram procedure, with the placement of two stents to repair the blockages to his coronary arteries. He is preparing for discharge in the next day or two, and you are assisting Carl with his post-discharge planning. His daughter is concerned about Carl’s heart-health management and possible long-term effects to his health, seeking support options post-discharge. As a member of a team implementing an evidence-based mobile app for Cardiac Rehabilitation management, you are also aware of Carl may be eligible to participate in a project evaluating an evidence-based mobile app for Cardiac Rehabilitation management. Alternatively, an outpatient program partnered with general practitioners, offering regular monitoring and a formal care plan is available to Carl. In planning Carl’s discharge and cardiac rehabilitation management, your approach should involve shared decision-making, focusing on patient-centred care and considering both the mobile app and the outpatient program as potential support options. Question 10: As part of the evidence-based practice you need to integrate patient preferences into your decision-making. Shared decision-making is an important part of collaborating with patients and their families. Explain the importance of shared decision-making in relation to your chosen scenario. Your answers should be supported by the NMBA Registered Nurse Standards for Practice (2016) and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards. You may use abbreviations for ‘NMBA’ and ‘NSHQS’. As part of your answer, you must identify the linking standards numerically (e.g., NMBA RN standard 1.2) and then discuss how they support the importance of shared-decision making. Minimum of one additional reference is required. (Approximately 100 words) Answer: Question 11: Discuss how you will participate in shared decision-making with the patient and family in your chosen scenario. This answer has three parts. As part of your answer identify: 1) two potential barriers to shared decision-making in your scenario, then 2) identify two strategies to overcome these barriers. 3) Your answer must also discuss how bias may impact shared-decision making. (Minimum of two references) (Approximately 120 words) Answer: Part 3: Evaluating evidence-based projects Part 3 includes question 12. Part 3 relates to evaluating evidence-based projects. Students must offer two strategies to be used for the evaluation of evidence-based projects. Part 3 needs to be answered in relation to the two scenarios below. Scenario 1: You are part of the team that will evaluate the evidence-based mobile application implemented to help patients manage their Cardiac Rehabilitation. Scenario 2: You are part of the team that will evaluate a new evidence-based screening and management plan for patients with delirium. This plan focuses on non-pharmacological interventions partnering with carers. Question 12: Explain why it is important to evaluate evidence-based practice. In your answer you need to firstly explain why it is important to evaluate evidence-based practice. Secondly, you need to discuss how you will plan to evaluate your evidence-based project using the Logic Model as a framework. The AH-Trip group presents the Logic of Logic Model which breaks evaluation into five key areas: Inputs/ resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Choose two of these key areas and discuss how you plan to review them concerning your chosen scenario. (Approximately 100 words) Answer: I. II. Part 4: Disseminating evidence-based practice findings Part 4 includes question 13. Part 4 relates to disseminating the findings of evidence-based projects. Students must offer two methods to be used for the dissemination of these findings in relation to one of the scenarios below. Scenario 1 Your team plans to share the information learned from the implementation of an evidence-based mobile application to help patients manage their Cardiac Rehabilitation. Scenario 2 Your team plans to share the information learned from the implementation the new evidence-based screening and management plan for parents with delirium. This plan focuses on non-pharmacological interventions and partnering with carers. Question 13: Explain the importance of disseminating evidence-based practice project findings to the wider healthcare community in this scenario and discuss two methods of dissemination that you would use to share the findings in your chosen scenario and why they are effective dissemination methods in this case. (Minimum of two references) (Approximately 100 words) Answer: Write your reference list on the next page: Reference list

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."