I need help creating a PowerPoint that is related to the use of oxygen to help with hypoxia and organ failure in patients with COPD.
Purpose
The Group Presentation is the final of the three assignments in this course. It builds upon and utilizes information gathered and reported in the first two assignments. The purpose of this assignment is two-fold: a) to provide a solution to a clinical problem using a evidence based process, and b) to demonstrate presentation skills for a group of peers.
Course outcomes: This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes.
1. Examine the sources of knowledge that contribute to professional nursing practice. (PO 7)
2. Apply research principles to the interpretation of the content of published research studies. (POs 4 and 8)
3. Identify ethical issues common to research involving human subjects. (PO 6)
4. Evaluate published nursing research for credibility and clinical significance related to evidence-based practice. (POs 4 and 8)
5. Recognize the role of research findings in evidence-based practice. (POs 7 and 8)
Due date: Your faculty member will inform you when this assignment is due. The Late Assignment Policy applies to this assignment.
Total points possible: 240 points
Preparing the assignment (Online Students Only)
1. Follow these guidelines when completing this online assignment. Speak with your faculty member if you have questions.
a. Presentations will give a brief overview of the topic, followed by examples of how the topic influences or assists the nursing profession.
b. Each student will contribute two to three slides for the group presentation.
c. The final presentation will consist of 10–12 PowerPoint slides and may include handouts, if applicable.
Preparing the assignment
Content ([All Students] 120 points/50%)
· Identification of problem and impact on nursing practice.
· Clearly describe the research process, including what went well, barriers encountered, and what is still needed.
· Correlates research findings to identified clinical issue.
· Summarizes validity of qualitative and quantitative evidence.
· Findings are clearly identified.
· Recommends practice change with measurable outcomes and addresses feasibility issues.
· Suggestions for implementation.
· Conclusion of content findings.
b. Delivery (50 points/21%)
(Online Students Only)
· Follows guidelines for a professional PowerPoint presentation. Speak directly with faculty for online Canvas submission process.
· Evidence of participation by all group members.
c. Slide Presentation ( [All Students] 50 points/21% distributed as shown)
· Title slide including group members
· Introductory slide with the clinical problem
· Additional slides illustrating key points
· Conclusion slide
· Reference slide in current APA format
· Effective balance of color, graphics, words, and space
· Slide limit: 10–12, inclusive of introduction and references
***Optional handouts may be included to provide information for the audience to keep.
d. Peer Evaluation ( [All Students] 20 points/8%)
· Completed peer evaluation with respectful and constructive feedback.
· Equal work: Did equal share of work.
· Teamwork: Took the initiative in helping get the group organized.
· Communication: Provided ideas for the development of the presentation.
· Team membership skills: Assisted group members.
· Time: Met all deadlines.
For writing assistance, visit the Writing Center.
Please note that your instructor may provide you with additional assessments in any form to determine that you fully understand the concepts learned in the review module.
NR449 Evidence-Based Practice
RUA: Evidence-Based Practice Change Group Project Guidelines
NR449 Evidence-Based Practice
RUA: Evidence-Based Practice Change Group Project Guidelines
NR449_RUA_Group_Presentation_SEP23 © 2023 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved. 2
NR449_RUA_Group_Presentation_SEP23 © 2023 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved. 1
Grading Rubric Criteria are met when the student’s application of knowledge demonstrates achievement of the outcomes for this assignment.
Assignment Section and Required Criteria (Points possible/% of total points available) |
Highest Level of Performance |
High Level of Performance |
Satisfactory Level of Performance |
Unsatisfactory Level of Performance |
Section not present in paper |
Content (120 points/50%) |
120 points |
103 points |
91 points |
45 points |
0 points |
Required criteria 1. Identification of problem and impact on nursing practice. 2. Clearly describe the research process, including what went well, barriers encountered, and what is still needed. 3. Correlates research findings to identified clinical issue. 4. Summarizes validity of qualitative and quantitative evidence. 5. Findings are clearly identified. 6. Recommends practice change with measurable outcomes and addresses feasibility issues. 7. Suggestions for implementation. 8. Conclusion of content findings. |
Includes 8 requirements for section. |
Includes 7 requirements for section. |
Includes 6 requirements for section. |
Includes 5 or less requirements for section. |
No requirements for this section presented. |
Delivery (50 points/21%) |
50 points |
43 points |
38 points |
19 points |
0 points |
Required criteria (Online Students Only) 1. Follows guidelines for a professional PowerPoint presentation. Speak directly with faculty for online Canvas submission process. 2. Evidence of participation by all group members. (Campus Students Only) 1. Follows guidelines for a professional PowerPoint presentation. 2. Verbal delivery with good volume, pitch, and inflection for all group members. 3. Physical delivery with professional dress, good posture, facial expression with eye contact, and enthusiasm is present for all group members. 4. All group members effectively use notes and do not read from slides. 5. Participation by all group members. |
Includes 2 requirements for section. (online) Includes 5 requirements for section. (campus) |
N/A Includes 4 requirements for section. (campus) |
Includes 1 requirement for section. (online) Includes 3 requirements for section. (campus) |
N/A Includes 2 or less requirements for section. (campus) |
No requirements for this section presented. (online) No requirements for section presented. (campus) |
NR449 Evidence-Based Practice
RUA: Evidence-Based Practice Change Group Project Guidelines
NR449_RUA_Group_Presentation_SEP23 © 2023 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved. 2
Assignment Section and Required Criteria (Points possible/% of total points available) |
Highest Level of Performance |
High Level of Performance |
Satisfactory Level of Performance |
Unsatisfactory Level of Performance |
Section not present in paper |
Slide Presentation (50 points/21%) |
50 points |
43 points |
38 points |
19 points |
0 points |
Required criteria 1. Title slide including group members 2. Introductory slide with the clinical problem 3. Additional slides illustrating key points 4. Conclusion slide 5. Reference slide in current APA format 6. Effective balance of color, graphics, words, and space 7. Slide limit: 10–12, inclusive of introduction and references ***Optional handouts may be included to provide information for the audience to keep. |
Includes 7 requirements for section. |
Includes 6 requirements for section. |
Includes 5 requirements for section. |
Includes 4 or less requirements for section. |
No requirements for this section presented. |
Peer Evaluation (20 points/8%) |
20 points |
17 points |
15 points |
8 points |
0 points |
1. Completed peer evaluation with respectful and constructive feedback. 2. Equal work: Did equal share of work. 3. Teamwork: Took the initiative in helping get the group organized. 4. Communication: Provided ideas for the development of the presentation. 5. Team membership skills: Assisted group members. 6. Time: Met all deadlines. |
Includes 6 requirements for section. |
Includes 5 requirements for section. |
Includes 4 requirements for section. |
Includes 3 or less requirements for section. |
No requirements for this section presented. |
Total Points Possible = 240 points |
image1.png
,
The new england journal of medicine
n engl j med 375;17 nejm.org October 27, 2016 1617
established in 1812 October 27, 2016 vol. 375 no. 17
The members of the writing committee (Richard K. Albert, M.D., David H. Au, M.D., Amanda L. Blackford, Sc.M., Richard Casaburi, M.D., Ph.D., J. Allen Cooper, Jr., M.D., Gerard J. Criner, M.D., Philip Diaz, M.D., Anne L. Fuhlbrigge, M.D., Steven E. Gay, M.D., Richard E. Kanner, M.D., Neil MacIntyre, M.D., Fernando J. Martinez, M.D., Ralph J. Panos, M.D., Steven Piantadosi, M.D., Ph.D., Frank Sciurba, M.D., David Shade, J.D., Thomas Stibolt, M.D., James K. Stoller, M.D., Robert Wise, M.D., Roger D. Yusen, M.D., James Tonascia, Ph.D., Alice L. Stern- berg, Sc.M., and William Bailey, M.D.) as- sume responsibility for this article. The affiliations of the members of the writing committee are listed in the Appendix. Ad- dress reprint requests to Dr. Wise at the Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Cen- ter, 4B.72, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, 5501 Hopkins Bayview Cir- cle, Baltimore, MD 21224, or at rwise@ jhmi . edu.
* A complete list of investigators in the Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT) Research Group is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
N Engl J Med 2016;375:1617-27. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1604344 Copyright © 2016 Massachusetts Medical Society.
BACKGROUND Long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen has unknown efficacy in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation.
METHODS We originally designed the trial to test whether long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen would result in a longer time to death than no use of supplemental oxygen among patients who had stable COPD with moderate resting desaturation (oxyhemoglobin satu- ration as measured by pulse oximetry [Spo2], 89 to 93%). After 7 months and the ran- domization of 34 patients, the trial was redesigned to also include patients who had stable COPD with moderate exercise-induced desaturation (during the 6-minute walk test, Spo2 ≥80% for ≥5 minutes and <90% for ≥10 seconds) and to incorporate the time to the first hospitalization for any cause into the new composite primary outcome. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive long-term supplemental oxygen (supplemental- oxygen group) or no long-term supplemental oxygen (no-supplemental-oxygen group). In the supplemental-oxygen group, patients with resting desaturation were prescribed 24-hour oxygen, and those with desaturation only during exercise were prescribed oxygen during exercise and sleep. The trial-group assignment was not masked.
RESULTS A total of 738 patients at 42 centers were followed for 1 to 6 years. In a time-to-event analysis, we found no significant difference between the supplemental-oxygen group and the no-supplemental-oxygen group in the time to death or first hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.12; P = 0.52), nor in the rates of all hospitalizations (rate ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.13), COPD exacerbations (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.19), and COPD-related hospitalizations (rate ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.17). We found no consistent between-group differences in measures of quality of life, lung function, and the distance walked in 6 minutes.
CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable COPD and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation, the prescription of long-term supplemental oxygen did not result in a longer time to death or first hospitalization than no long-term supplemental oxygen, nor did it provide sustained benefit with regard to any of the other measured outcomes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; LOTT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00692198.)
a bs tr ac t
A Randomized Trial of Long-Term Oxygen for COPD with Moderate Desaturation
The Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial Research Group*
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on January 20, 2024. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2016 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
n engl j med 375;17 nejm.org October 27, 20161618
T h e n e w e ngl a nd j o u r na l o f m e dic i n e
Two trials that were conducted in the 1970s showed that long-term treat- ment with supplemental oxygen reduced
mortality among patients with chronic obstruc- tive pulmonary disease (COPD) and severe resting hypoxemia.1,2 These results led to the recommen- dation that supplemental oxygen be adminis- tered to patients with an oxyhemoglobin satura- tion, as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2), of less than 89%.3,4 In the 1990s, two trials evaluated long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen in patients with COPD who had mild-to-moderate daytime hypoxemia; neither trial showed a mor- tality benefit, but both were underpowered to assess mortality.5,6 The effects of oxygen treat- ment on hospitalization,7-9 exercise performance, and quality of life are unclear.10
Medicare reimbursements for oxygen-related costs for patients with COPD exceeded $2 billion in 2011.11 If long-term treatment with supple- mental oxygen reduces the incidence of COPD- related hospitalizations, increased use could be cost-effective. Reliable estimates of the number of prescriptions for supplemental oxygen that are written for the indication of exercise-induced desaturation are unavailable. Data suggest that many patients with advanced emphysema who are prescribed oxygen may not have severe rest- ing hypoxemia.12
The Long-Term Oxygen Treatment Trial (LOTT) was originally designed to test whether the use of supplemental oxygen would result in a longer time to death than no use of supplemental oxygen among patients with COPD and moderate resting desaturation (Spo2, 89 to 93%). After 7 months and the randomization of 34 patients, the trial design was judged to be infeasible owing to lower- than-projected mortality and the phenotypic overlap between patients with moderate resting desaturation and those with exercise-induced de- saturation. Accordingly, the investigators rede- signed the trial to include patients with exercise- induced desaturation and to incorporate the secondary outcome of hospitalization for any cause into the new composite primary outcome. Patients who underwent randomization under the original design continued in the redesigned trial.
The amended trial tested whether the use of supplemental oxygen resulted in a longer time to death or first hospitalization for any cause (com- posite primary outcome) than no use of supple-
mental oxygen among patients with moderate resting desaturation or moderate exercise-induced desaturation. The original and amended trial protocols are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Herein we report the pri- mary and secondary outcomes and 11 of the 14 other outcomes listed in the trial protocol (see the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org, for the reasons that 3 outcomes are not reported).
Me thods
Design
We conducted this parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of long-term supplemental oxygen versus no long-term supplemental oxygen in patients with COPD and moderate resting or exercise-induced desaturation. Randomization was performed in a 1:1 ratio, and the trial-group assignment was not masked. The primary out- come in the time-to-event analysis, measured from randomization, was the composite of death or first hospitalization. The protocol specified that the consistency of treatment effects would be tested in subgroups of patients that were de- fined according to prespecified baseline charac- teristics. The protocol and amendments were approved by the data and safety monitoring board for the trial and by the institutional re- view board at each center. No materials were donated to this trial.
Patients
A total of 14 regional clinical centers and their associated sites (a total of 47 centers) screened patients who had stable COPD and moderate resting desaturation (Spo2, 89 to 93%) or moderate exercise-induced desaturation (during the 6-min- ute walk test, Spo2 ≥80% for ≥5 minutes and <90% for ≥10 seconds). All the patients signed a contract in which they agreed not to smoke while using oxygen, and they provided written informed consent. Table S1 in the Supplemen- tary Appendix lists all the selection criteria.
Interventions
Patients in the supplemental-oxygen group were prescribed 24-hour oxygen if their resting Spo2 was 89 to 93% and oxygen only during sleep and exercise if they had desaturation only during ex- ercise. All the patients in the supplemental-oxygen
A Quick Take is available at
NEJM.org
The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on January 20, 2024. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2016 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
n engl j med 375;17 nejm.org October 27, 2016 1619
Long-Term Oxygen for COPD with Moder ate Desatur ation
group were prescribed stationary and portable oxygen systems and 2 liters of oxygen per minute during sleep. Patients in the supplemental-oxygen group who had been prescribed 24-hour oxygen were prescribed 2 liters of oxygen per minute at rest. The ambulatory dose of oxygen was individu- ally prescribed and reassessed annually: 2 liters of oxygen per minute or adjusted higher to main- tain an Spo2 of 90% or more for at least 2 minutes while the patient was walking. The protocol specified that patients in the supplemental- oxygen group continue the use of supplemental oxygen regardless of increase in the Spo2 level and that patients in the no-supplemental-oxygen group avoid the use of supplemental oxygen un- less severe resting desaturation (Spo2 ≤88%) or severe exercise-induced desaturation (Spo2 <80% for ≥1 minute) developed. If either of these con- ditions developed, oxygen was prescribed and the oxygen requirement was reassessed after 30 days.
Each patient in the supplemental-oxygen group spoke with an adherence educator regularly to discuss barriers to adherence to the assigned regimen and to report average daily use. Each patient in the group that received no long-term supplemental oxygen (no-supplemental-oxygen group) spoke with an adherence educator 1 week after randomization to discuss living without supplemental oxygen. Every 4 months, all the patients were asked about supplemental-oxygen use; those who reported some oxygen use were asked to estimate the average daily use. Patients in the supplemental-oxygen group who used stationary oxygen concentrators also kept logs of meter readings.
Outcomes
In addition to the composite primary outcome and its components, outcomes included the inci- dence of COPD exacerbation, adherence to the supplemental-oxygen regimen, development of severe resting desaturation (as assessed by means of pulse oximetry), development of severe exer- cise-induced desaturation (as assessed by means of pulse oximetry), the distance walked in 6 min- utes, and scores on the Quality of Well-Being Scale (mean d