EBP & APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH DQ
Five competency statements are printed above the task, and they are the marking scheme. The first asks you to tell quality improvement, evidence-based practice and research apart, which is the distinction most submissions blur.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 22, 2026
The competency statements are the marking scheme
Read the numbered competencies as the rubric, because that is what they are. Each one names something the graduate must demonstrate, and an evaluator will look for each in turn, so structure the submission so that all five are visibly addressed rather than hoping they emerge from a general discussion. The first is the conceptual load-bearing one: differentiating quality improvement, evidence-based practice and research. These are routinely used interchangeably and they are not the same activity. Research generates new knowledge and is generalisable, evidence-based practice applies existing knowledge to a clinical decision in a particular setting, and quality improvement tests changes to a local process against local measures. The clearest way to hold them apart is to ask what each produces: research produces a finding meant to be true beyond its setting, evidence-based practice a decision for one unit, and quality improvement a changed process measured only where it changed.
That distinction is not academic hair-splitting, and saying why gives the section substance. It decides whether a project requires review by an institutional review board, whether informed consent is required, whether findings may be generalised beyond the unit, and which reporting standard applies. The boundary is genuinely contested where a quality improvement project is written up for publication, and acknowledging that is better than pretending the line is clean. For the appraisal itself, work through problem, purpose, design, sample, data collection, analysis, findings and limitations, and use criteria matched to the design rather than applying internal validity language to qualitative work. The ethics competency wants human-subjects protection, informed consent and alignment with patient values addressed specifically, and the dissemination competency wants you to say where the findings would go and to whom, which for a unit-level finding usually means a shared governance council rather than a journal.
Likely learning objectives
- Differentiate research, evidence-based practice and quality improvement.
- Explain the regulatory consequences of that distinction.
- Appraise an article using design-appropriate criteria.
- Address human-subjects protection and dissemination explicitly.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
724.8.5: Foundations of Inquiry – The graduate differentiates between quality improvement processes, evidence based practice, and research. 724.8.6 Literature Review and Analysis – The graduate demonstrates knowledge of the process and outcomes of conducting a literature review. 724.8.7: Ethics and Research – The graduate demonstrates understanding of the ethics of nursing research, particularly human subjects’ protections, informed consent, and alignment with patient and family values and preferences. 724.8.8: Patient Outcomes – The graduate discriminates between identified standards and practices that do not provide improvements in patient outcomes utilizing relevant sources of evidence and the application of nursing theory. 724.8.9: Data Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination – The graduate describes the process of data collection, analysis, and implementation of evidence that can improve clinical practice from an interprofessional perspective. Task 1: Analyzing Research Articles Introduction: There are many sources of information available on the web and in journals relating to the nursing discipline. Therefore, it is of pivotal importance to understand the basic tenets of critical appraisal of research for its use in interprofessional healthcare practices. The aim of evidence-based practice (EBP) is to employ a three-pronged approach, blending the best available research evidence, patient values and preferences, and clinical expertise. EBP & APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH DQ In this task, you will critique two primary research evidence sources. You will select one quantitative and one qualitative peer-reviewed journal article on a healthcare topic of interest. Requirements: Your submission must be your original work. No more than a combined total of 30% of the submission and no more than a 10% match to any one individual source can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from sources, even if cited correctly. An originality report is provided when you submit your task that can be used as a guide. You must use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission because it provides detailed criteria that will be used to evaluate your work. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course. Note: Research evidence must not be more than five years old. Note: Upload a copy of the full text of the articles with your submission. Note: You may use the same topic and research articles on both Task 1: Analyzing Research Articles and Task 2: Evidence-Based Practice Change. 5/21/2019 Taskstream by Watermark https://folio.taskstream.com/folio/BasicBlankStyle.asp?qyz=&idx=directionsId_1 2/2 A. Evaluate a primary, quantitative research, peer-reviewed journal article (suggested length of 3–5 pages) that has healthcare implications by doing the following: Note: You may select an article focusing on a healthcare topic of your choice or an article focusing on one of the following topics: falls and fall prevention, pain management in children, opioid abuse, hepatitis C, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, or hand hygiene and infections in hospitals. 1. Describe how the researcher addresses the following four areas in the selected journal article: • background or introduction (e.g., the purpose of the study) • review of the literature (e.g., research used to support the study) • data analysis (e.g., how the researcher analyzed the data) • methodology (e.g., research type and sampling methods) 2. Evaluate whether the evidence presented in each of the four areas of the journal article from part A1 supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research. 3. Explain how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher, using specific information from the journal article from part A. 4. Describe one strength and one limitation of the study. 5. Describe how the evidence from the article in part A informs current nursing practices. B. Evaluate a primary, qualitative research, peer-reviewed journal article (suggested length of 3–5 pages) that has healthcare implications by doing the following: EBP & APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH DQ Note: You may select an article focusing on a healthcare topic of your choice or an article focusing on one of the following topics: falls and fall prevention, pain management in children, opioid abuse, hepatitis C, catheter associated urinary tract infections, or hand hygiene and infections in hospitals. You may use the same topic that was used in part A. 1. Describe how the researcher addresses the following four areas in the selected journal article: • background or introduction (e.g., the purpose of the study) • review of the literature (e.g., research used to support the study) • data analysis (e.g., how the researcher analyzed the data) • methodology (e.g., research type and sampling methods) 2. Evaluate whether the evidence presented in each of the four areas of the journal article from part B1 supports the outcome of the study and implications for future research. 3. Explain how the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations were addressed by the researcher, using specific information from the journal article from part B. 4. Identify one strength and one limitation of the study. 5. Describe how the evidence from the article in part B informs current nursing practices. C. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. D. Demonstrate professional communication in the content and presentation of your submission. Web Links: 1.XAP Task 1 Rubric link opens in new window https://w.taskstream.com/RubricWizard/RubricPrintView/PrintView?encLegacyRubricId=pcflf7edfhfjf6em&platform=LAT
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A clear differentiation of the three activities with their purposes.
- 02The review-board and consent consequences of the distinction.
- 03A structured appraisal of the selected articles.
- 04Design-appropriate credibility criteria.
- 05Human-subjects protections and informed consent addressed.
- 06A dissemination plan naming audience and channel.
Distinguish the three, then appraise, then dissemination
Three activities, not one
Define research, evidence-based practice and quality improvement by purpose.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Generalisability identified as what separates research from the others.
Why the distinction has consequences
Trace the distinction to review board, consent and reporting requirements.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A regulatory consequence named, not just a conceptual difference.
Appraising the articles
Work through problem, design, sample, analysis, findings and limitations.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A limitation identified from the methods rather than from the discussion.
Ethics and human subjects
Address protections, consent and alignment with patient and family values.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Consent treated as a process rather than as a form.
Dissemination
Say where findings go, to whom, and in what form.
What the assessor is likely looking for
An audience named with a channel that would reach it.
Where appraisal and human-subjects standards are published
Recommended databases
- NCBI Bookshelf
- PubMed Central
- Office for Human Research Protections
- WGU Library
Search sequence
- 1.Find a source that draws the research and quality improvement boundary explicitly.
- 2.Read the appraisal criteria for the designs of your chosen articles.
- 3.Check the human-subjects requirements that apply to each activity type.
- 4.Look for guidance on reporting standards for the design you appraise.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Evidence-Based Medicine
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Evidence-based medicine, for the definition that separates application from generation.
PRISMA, for reporting standards and appraisal of reviews.
Patient Safety and Quality
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NCBI Bookshelf · 2008
Patient safety and quality, for quality improvement as a local process activity.
The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, via PubMed Central · 2010
The hierarchy of evidence, for matching criteria to design.
Implementation strategies for large scale quality improvement initiatives in primary care settings: a qualitative assessment
BMC Primary Care · 2023
An implementation study, as a worked example of the improvement and research boundary.
Before you submit this task
Common mistakes
- Treating quality improvement and research as the same activity.
- Structuring the paper so a competency is addressed only implicitly.
- Applying quantitative validity criteria to qualitative studies.
- Discussing ethics generally rather than as human-subjects protection.
- Omitting dissemination, which is a named competency.
Submission checklist
- Is each numbered competency visibly addressed?
- Have you explained the review-board consequence of the distinction?
- Are your appraisal criteria matched to each article's design?
- Is informed consent addressed specifically?
- Does the dissemination section name an audience?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.