{"title":"Evaluation and quality improvement of Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner scholarly projects.","authors":"Erin C Donovan, Janice A Holvoet, Kathleen N Hall","doi":"10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education's accreditation standards require nursing programs to demonstrate that students acquire doctoral-level knowledge and competencies beyond that expected at the baccalaureate and/or masters levels. The purpose of this article was to describe a quality improvement (QI) project for Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner (NP) scholarly projects.</p><p><strong>Local problem: </strong>Nurse practitioner faculty inquired about whether students' scholarly projects were of the quality and rigor expected at the doctoral, rather than masters, level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project was conducted as a QI initiative and was designated as such by the institutional review board. Methods were based on Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act QI process model.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Two doctorally prepared nursing faculty evaluated nine doctoral scholarly projects using the Roush DNP-PCAT instrument. This instrument evaluates 16 components, and key elements within each component, for completeness. The DNP-PCAT tool was evaluated for interrater reliability and content validity in an earlier study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Strengths and weaknesses were identified using quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Floor effects were seen in strategic planning, ethical concerns, data collection, results, discussion, and limitations. Qualitative findings identified weaknesses across all 16 components. Findings were similar to the results reported in a prior study. Results were reviewed and action plans were developed to improve the rigor of scholarly projects.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The nursing faculty plan to incorporate routine evaluation of scholarly projects into their program evaluation. Other NP programs may benefit from instituting a similar process.</p>","PeriodicalId":48812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000668","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education's accreditation standards require nursing programs to demonstrate that students acquire doctoral-level knowledge and competencies beyond that expected at the baccalaureate and/or masters levels. The purpose of this article was to describe a quality improvement (QI) project for Doctor of Nursing Practice-Family Nurse Practitioner (NP) scholarly projects.
Local problem: Nurse practitioner faculty inquired about whether students' scholarly projects were of the quality and rigor expected at the doctoral, rather than masters, level.
Methods: This project was conducted as a QI initiative and was designated as such by the institutional review board. Methods were based on Deming Plan-Do-Study-Act QI process model.
Interventions: Two doctorally prepared nursing faculty evaluated nine doctoral scholarly projects using the Roush DNP-PCAT instrument. This instrument evaluates 16 components, and key elements within each component, for completeness. The DNP-PCAT tool was evaluated for interrater reliability and content validity in an earlier study.
Results: Strengths and weaknesses were identified using quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Floor effects were seen in strategic planning, ethical concerns, data collection, results, discussion, and limitations. Qualitative findings identified weaknesses across all 16 components. Findings were similar to the results reported in a prior study. Results were reviewed and action plans were developed to improve the rigor of scholarly projects.
Conclusions: The nursing faculty plan to incorporate routine evaluation of scholarly projects into their program evaluation. Other NP programs may benefit from instituting a similar process.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (JAANP) is a monthly peer-reviewed professional journal that serves as the official publication of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.
Published since 1989, the JAANP provides a strong clinical focus with articles related to primary, secondary, and tertiary care, nurse practitioner education, health policy, ethics and ethical issues, and health care delivery. The journal publishes original research, integrative/comprehensive reviews, case studies, a variety of topics in clinical practice, and theory-based articles related to patient and professional education. Although the majority of nurse practitioners function in primary care, there is an increasing focus on the provision of care across all types of systems from acute to long-term care settings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
