Queensland University of Technology NSB203

Assessment name:	Individual poster
Task description:	This assessment asks you to produce an informational poster addressing a patient safety issue identified from clinical practice, drawing upon evidence and using a structured inquiry-based learning approach. Your ability to define a practice-based practice issue, seek and appraise relevant evidence to address this issue, and synthesise this evidence to establish recommendations for practice will be assessed. The assessment addresses key components and skills developed during this unit, which relate directly to your ability as future registered nurses to think critically about the patient care you deliver, to identify clinical questions for investigation, and your ability to ensure the care you deliver is based upon sound evidence.
What you need to do:	Read the Criterion Reference Assessment sheet for this task. Prepare To successfully complete the assessment, undertake the following steps: 1. Identify a patient safety issue directly related to nursing practice. Tips: • Choose a topic that interests you. This might relate to your practice placement area OR workplace (if you work clinically) OR experience as a patient, family member or friend. • For this assessment, you are encouraged to consider an issue that focuses on an intervention. • Excluded topics: hand hygiene; pharmacological topics that do not directly relate to nursing practice; Assessment 2 Clinical Practice Topics; topics used as examples in Workshops or teaching resources. 2. Construct a clinical question: use PICO to clearly define all elements of the patient safety issue. 3. Develop a strategy to address the clinical question and examine the evidence related to your topic. You need to consider the following questions: a. What type of evidence will answer the question?

NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 3 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice

b. Which databases will you search to find this evidence? c. How will you establish the keywords and limits for the searches? d. How will you manage and organize the evidence you find? e. How will you decide on the level of evidence for each source? f. How you will decide which papers are of sufficient quality to use in your assignment ? Which critical appraisal tool(s) will you use? 4. Collate, summarise and analyse the evidence. Choose the five papers at the highest level of evidence on which to base your recommendations. Consider any gaps or limitations to the available evidence you found. Use the information at this step to populate the Literature Matrix. 5. Synthesise the five highest level pieces of evidence to establish recommendations for practice and create an evidence ‘bottom line’ statement that answers your clinical question. 6. Consider how you would approach implementation of the recommendations – for this, you will need to identify potential barriers and strategies. 7. Create a A1 size digital poster using Powerpoint that summarises your work and the recommendations for patient care, for an audience comprising of health care professionals. Your poster should communicate all of the following elements: a. A title which clearly communicates the patient safety issue b. The clinical question: structured using the PICO acronym c. A brief background to the topic d. Details of the search strategy e. A summary of the evidence found to answer the question. f. Details of the critical appraisal tool used and the quality of the evidence utilised. g. An explanation of any gaps or limitations to the evidence h. An evidence ‘bottom line’ statement.

NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 4 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice

i. A table detailing potential barriers to implementation of the recommendations, as well as strategies to overcome these barriers. j. References (presented on the first side of the poster) k. The literature matrix on the second page detailing the relevant details from the included studies (see the template). 8. Upload your poster to Turnitin by the due date and time Pictures or illustrations may be used to enhance your poster.
Length:	1100 words +/- 10% (excluding reference list)
Estimated time to complete task:	Allocate time weekly during the semester for addressing the tasks necessary to complete the assessment.
Weighting:	40%
How will I be assessed:	7 point grading scale using a rubric
Due date:	Poster to be submitted via Turnitin in your NSB203 Blackboard site by 11.59pm on Friday 16th October (Week 12). More information about Turnitin is available on the FAQs about Turnitin page.
Presentation requirements:	This assessment task must: • Be presented as a digital A1 or A0 size poster (with literature matrix on second page) using Powerpoint • Use Vancouver referencing for citing academic literature. Refer to QUT Cite Write for guidance. • Be submitted in electronic format via Turnitin.
Learning outcomes assessed:	1. Explain the key concepts and principles of the research process and outline the importance of evidence-based practice approaches for the provision of safe and quality health care and for the global health research agenda. 2. Apply key literacy and critical thinking skills to locate, seek, interpret, analyse, synthesise and integrate evidence into practice. 3. Apply knowledge of quantitative and qualitative approaches to explain their role in research of contemporary, global health care issues.
What you need to submit:	An A1 or A0 size Powerpoint poster with the literature matrix on the second page (via Turnitin).

NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 5 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice

Academic Integrity The School of Nursing takes academic integrity very seriously. All work submitted must be your own work and work not previously submitted for other study. The work of others needs to be correctly acknowledged and referenced according to the CiteWrite APA guidelines. There are serious consequences that will be imposed should you be found to breach academic integrity. Make sure you are familiar with the MOPP C/5.3 Academic Integrity and view the Academic Integrity video and explore the Academic Case Studies available on your Blackboard site. Maintaining academic integrity is your responsibility. If in doubt, check it carefully.

NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 6 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice
Digital Poster Example
This is an example to provide you with some inspiration for your poster design. Your
poster must not be a direct copy of this layout – this poster also contains information
boxes to assist you in developing your poster. You do not need to include these.
Poster Front Example
NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 7 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice
Poster Back Example (Literature Matrix)
NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 8 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice
NSB203 Inquiry into Clinical Practice Rubric Assessment 3
Learning outcomes assessed: 1, 2 and 3 Assessment 3 Weighting: 40%

Criteria - 50% total	7	6	5	4	3	2	1
Informational Poster
Knowledge and understanding of research and EBP processes #1 Weighting: 10%	Clearly articulated, relevant and focused clinical practice question. All PICO elements defined succinctly.	Clearly articulated and relevant clinical practice question. All PICO elements clearly defined.	Clearly focused clinical practice question. All PICO elements defined.	Clearly identified, but obvious, clinical practice question. All necessary PICO elements evident.	Clinical practice question lacks focus or clarity: some areas may require further development. PICO elements undefined or absent.	Clinical practice question lacks focus, clarity and components of the question are absent. PICO elements unclear or absent.	Clinical practice question is absent. No PICO elements evident.
Knowledge and understanding of research and EBP processes #2 Weighting: 30%	Demonstrates an in depth knowledge of the key concepts of research processes, and a high level, comprehensive understanding of utilising the EBP process. Includes and explains, in depth, all required steps of the EBP process. Fully and accurately applies and seamlessly integrates this knowledge in the context of the practice issue.	Demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the key concepts of research processes, and a comprehensive understanding of utilising the EBP process. Includes and clearly explains all required steps of the EBP process. Applies and attempts to integrate this knowledge in the context of the practice issue.	Demonstrates a sound level of knowledge of the key concepts of research processes, and a sound understanding of utilising the EBP process. Includes and explains all required steps of the EBP process. Applies some of this knowledge in the context of the practice issue.	Demonstrates a basic level of knowledge of the key concepts of research processes, and a basic understanding of the EBP process. Includes and explains all required steps of the EBP process with up to one minor omission. Applies some basic knowledge in the context of the practice issue.	Demonstrates a limited level of knowledge of the key concepts of research processes, and limited understanding of utilsing the EBP process. Does not include or explain two required steps of the EBP process. Some rudimentary but limited application of this knowledge in the context of the process.	Demonstrates a very limited level of knowledge of the key concepts of research processes, and a very limited understanding of utilising the EBP process. Does not include or explains three required steps of the EBP process. Very limited application of the knowledge of research processes to the practice issue.	Knowledge of the key concepts of research processes is not demonstrated; no understanding of utilising the EBP process. Does not include or explains more than three required steps of the EBP process. Does not apply knowledge of research proceses to the practice issue.

NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 9 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice

Critical Thinking #1 Weighting: 15%	Sophisticated critical thinking skills utilised to analyse and synthesise evidence to establish clear and justified best practice recommendations.	A high level of critical thinking skills utilised to analyse and synthesise evidence to establish clear and justified best practice recommendations.	Evidence of critical thinking skills utilised to analyse and synthesise evidence to establish justified and clear best practice recommendations.	Evidence of critical thinking skills to analyse and synthesise evidence to establish justified best practice recommendations	Limited application of critical thinking skills to analyse and synthesise evidence. Best practice recommendations only partially developed.	Very limited application of critical thinking skills to analyse and synthesise evidence. Best practice recommendations only partially developed or incorrect.	Does not apply critical thinking skills to analyse and synthesise evidence. Best practice recommendation s absent.
Critical thinking #2: literature Weighting: 15%	Work is thoroughly supported by wholly relevant, high quality scholarly literature, with clear and accurate application of levels of evidence throughout.	Work is consistently supported by relevant, high quality scholarly literature with accurate and clear application of levels of evidence.	Work is supported by relevant, high quality scholarly literature with accurate application applying levels of evidence.	Work is supported by relevant literature with accurate consideration of levels of evidence.	Work lacks support, with limited relevant scholarly literature. Limited application of levels of evidence or levels incorrectly applied on up to two occasions.	Work lacks support, with very limited relevant scholarly literature. Limited or no application of levels of evidence, or levels incorrectly applied on more than two occasions.	No support from relevant scholarly literature or application of levels of evidence. Levels of evidence absent.
Presentation: Weighting: 5%	Poster content and literature matrix has a high level of clarity and organisation, with logical flow throughout. No errors in Vancouver referencing.	Poster content and literature matrix is clear and organised, with logical flow. Few and minor errors (up to one error) in Vancouver referencing.	Poster content and literature matrix is clear and organised. Flow is generally logical. Few errors (up to one) in Vancouver referencing.	Organisation and adequate clarity evident. Flow is generally logical. Some consistent errors (up to two errors) in Vancouver referencing.	Several areas of the poster content lack clarity and organisation. Major errors (>2) in Vancouver referencing.	Poorly organised or cluttered poster, with unclear content. Major errors (>3) in Vancouver referencing.	Very poorly organised or cluttered poster, with unclear content. Many and major errors (>5) in Vancouver referencing throughout.

NSB203 – Assessment Task 3 Page 10 of 10
NSB203 – Inquiry into Clinical Practice

Academic writing and presentation: Weighting: 5%	Consistently high, and well-structured, academic writing skills, and logical organisations of ideas is evident. Accurate grammar, spelling and professional vocabulary.	Well-developed and structured academic writing skills and clear organisation evident. Mostly consistent and accurate use of grammar, spelling and professional vocabulary.	Sound academic writing skills and work is mainly well-organised. Some minor errors in grammar, spelling and professional vocabulary.	A basic level of academic writing skills. Some errors in grammar, spelling and professional vocabulary are evident.	A basic level of academic writing skills, however structure and organisation is lacking. Significant errors in grammar, spelling and the use of professional vocabulary, which affects clarity.	Poor organisation and academic writing skills are evident. Significant errors in grammar, spelling and the use of professional vocabulary, which affects clarity.	Very poor organisation and academic writing skills are evident. Many, significant errors in grammar, spelling and the use of professional vocabulary, which affects clarity.
Critical thinking #3: Weighting: 15%	Clearly, concisely and insightfully considers highly relevant barriers and enablers to implementation. Thoroughly considers and logically matches enablers to address barriers.	Clearly and concisely considers relevant barriers and enablers to implementation. Considers and logically matches enablers to address barriers.	Sound consideration of relevant barriers and enablers to implementation. Considers and matches enablers to address barriers.	Adequate consideration of relevant barriers and enablers to implementation. Basic consideration and matching of enablers to address barriers.	Limited description of relevant barriers and enablers to implementation. Limited consideration or no matching of enablers to address barriers.	Very limited description of, or irrelevant, barriers and enablers to implementation. Very limited consideration or no matching of enablers to address barriers.	No description of barriers and enablers to implementation. No consideration enablers to address barriers.

 Satisfactorily complied with the Academic Integrity standards outlined in the MOPP C/5.3 Academic Integrity.