Practice Guidelines – 1000 (Relates to LO 2)
This section does NOT have to relate to the PICO topic above.
Locate 2 guidelines which are comparable in terms of their scope of practice (e.g. both on pain, or trauma management, or learning disabilities). Each should be compiled by a different body and do not need to be produced in the UK. Note guidelines. A systematic review or randomised control trial are not examples of guidelines. You should use international / national or local guidelines which make recommendations and which clearly indicate that they are guidelines.
Using a recognised guideline analysis tool, compare and contrast the development of each guideline. Bear in mind that you are not contrasting the recommendations that the guidelines make; the objective is to consider the development process and overall guideline quality. In order to assist you in this process you must use a guideline evaluation tool, such as the AGREE II tool – available in the Supplementary Materials section of Course Materials in Blackboard.
You only have 1000 words and need to be selective in terms of what you cover. Aspects to consider, as a minimum (these relate to different sections of the AGREE tool), include the range of expertise drawn upon (i.e. the guideline development group), patient representation, the quality / range and currency of evidence used, updating procedures, and the clarity of the guideline as a whole. If you capture these concisely you might then have word count to cover a couple of additional aspects such as peer review, conflicts of interest or other criteria.
When doing the above you MUST include additional analysis – focusing on what the aspects being covered bring in terms of enhancing the quality or uptake of guidelines in general. This critical approach is essential. It will require you to do some additional background searching / reading. For example, when considering review dates or involvement of patients aim to indicate (with supporting citations) what would be considered good practice, and what these bring to the process of guideline quality or uptake. Similarly, if analysing the process of peer review, or editorial independence, aim to indicate why these are needed and/ or what they bring in terms of enhancing guidelines. A discussion which lacks this approach, and which simply compares what the guidelines do in each section, will ultimately be descriptive and will score poorly.
For example, stating that “In relation to updating, Guideline A indicates that this is done every 3 years, compared to Guideline B which has no updating procedure.” – is descriptive. It should instead aim to take an analytical approach along the lines of; “In relation to updating procedures, Guideline A does this every 3 years, compared to Guideline B which has no updating procedure. Bloggs (20xx) indicates that guidelines should ideally be reviewed on a regular basis, and no less than every X years, as evidence changes rapidly and guidelines quickly become outdated”.
Note how concise the approach taken is. Above all it is analytical, indicating what the guidelines do – and how they compare with good practice. This approach should be taken throughout the discussion.
Conclude by briefly indicating which (if either) would be more suitable in practice, giving a clear rationale for that choice based on the analysis undertaken.
The assignment supporting materials in the Course Materials, Session One folder will support you in terms of the layout of this section of the assignment and how it can achieve the critical approach required to score well.
Manipulating the evidence – 1000 (Relates to LO 3)
“Evidence can be manipulated in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons”. Critically discuss this statement.
This theme has run throughout the module and there are a number of approaches you might take here. You do not have to cover all examples of how evidence can be manipulated and should focus on one area – for example, publication bias OR the effects of biased media reporting.
Note that publication bias (i.e. the tendency for positive outcomes from research to be published in academic journals more readily than negative outcomes) is a totally different concept from the way in which the media report on something (i.e. media reporting bias). Cover one or the other – don’t try to do both.
Whatever the focus, the assignment should start with a clear definition of it and then provide two detailed examples of it having occurred, before concluding with a brief discussion of its broader implications.
The online activities provided you with a number of resources that would be of use in this regard.
To recap
Define the type of manipulation to be discussed. Keep this focused and relatively brief – there is no need to discuss lots of different types of manipulation or bias. Suggest covering EITHER publication bias OR media reporting bias.
Give two detailed examples of it, indicating the manipulation which took place and any specific consequences / outcomes. This requires depth of coverage, and will need a range of supporting citations – to the original sources involved and to support the analysis of what took place.
Conclude with a brief discussion of the broader implications of manipulation of evidence – for providers and / or consumers of health care.
Conclusion / Opportunities – 300 (covers LO4)
Discuss how the use of the EBP skills acquired during the module will translate into opportunities for enhancing practice. Be realistic here, and aim to include challenges inherent in this process – and keep the discussion objective.
On successful completion, you will be able to:
Demonstrate the skills of locating high quality evidence that is capable of enhancing decision making in your own sphere of practice (covered in Part 1 of the assignment – search skills and hierarchy).
Discuss how guidelines, policies and protocols are developed and how they evolve by analysing specific examples from your own area of practice (covered in Part 2 of the assignment, guideline analysis).
Demonstrate how evidence can be manipulated and analyse specific examples of this from your own sphere of practice (covered in Part 3 of the assignment, manipulation of evidence)
Critically analyse how learning from this module has transformed your understanding of your practice (covered in the Conclusion of the assignment).
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
