Assessment task 3: Written report – annotated bibliography
Assessment description:
Assessment 3 builds on your work in the discussion boards (Assessment 2). For this assessment, you will be evaluating four recent journal articles related to your clinical question. You will do this by summarising and evaluating the articles in an annotated
ibliography.
• Weight: 50%
• Length: 2500 words±10%
• Due date: Week 12, Sunday 8th October 2023, 23:59:00 ACST
• Learning outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Assessment instructions:
Using what you have learned from modules 1-6 create a report on an annotated
ibliography based on the topic selected in assignment 2. The report needs to contain:
Structure of the written assessment:
Section suggestions
Introduction
ackground •
iefly introduce the background information of the
topic and the outline of this assignment
• XXXXXXXXXXwords
The main body of the
annotated bibliography
(4 x relevant and cu
ent
esearch articles)
• using four separate paragraphs to evaluate the four
selected research articles, the following elements
should be addressed:
(1) What was the study design of the article: qualitative
or quantitative? And which type of qualitative or
quantitative study?
(2) What was the aim of the research?
(3) How was the study conducted?
(4) What were the results of the study and did the
study answer the study question/aim?
(5) What are the methodological strengths and
limitations of the study?
(6) How can further improve the methodological
quality of the study?
• 2000 words
Conclusion • Overall statement on the applicability of the evaluated
articles to clinical practice
• XXXXXXXXXXwords
Please note:
• Using APA 7th reference style
• References list is not included in the word count
• Academic writing, 1st person is NOT acceptable in the annotated bibliography
assessment
• An example of an annotated bibliography has been provided to guide your
submission format.
Criteria:
• Knowledge of the underpinning principles and theories of research
• Demonstrate an ability to locate and select appropriate literature to answer a
healthcare question
• Show critical thinking concerning the selected articles and develop a coherent
argument for how they address the specified research question
• Apply academic convention to develop a clear and logical argument within the word
limit (+/-10%)
Page 1 of 1
MARKING RUBRIC – WRITTEN ASSESSMENT – NUR256 – Assessment 3
College of Nursing and Midwifery
Exceptional Advanced Proficient Functional Developing
Knowledge 25% Mastery of content Substantial knowledge of
fundamental concepts in
the field of study.
Good knowledge of
fundamental concepts in
the field of study.
Adequate knowledge of
fundamental concepts in
the field of study.
Deficiencies in understanding
the fundamental concepts in
the field of study
Critical analysis 25% Expert and critical
evaluation of data, cases,
problems and their
solutions and implications
Critical evaluation of data,
cases, problems and their
solutions and implications
Considered evaluation of
data, cases, problems and
their solutions and
implications
Identifies data, cases,
problems and their
solutions and implications
Inability to identify data,
cases, problems and their
solutions and implications
Argument 25% Significant and
sophisticated insights in
identifying, generating
and synthesising
competing arguments or
perspectives
Perceptive insights in
identifying, generating
and synthesising
competing arguments or
perspectives
Develops or adapts
convincing argument and
provide coherent
justification
Develop routine arguments
or decisions
Presents inappropriate or
unsupported arguments
Communication 20% Masters the conventions
of the discipline to
communicate at an expert
level
Uses the conventions of
the discipline to
communicate at a
professional level
Uses the conventions of
the discipline to
communicate at an
effective level
Uses some of the
conventions of the
discipline to communicate
appropriately
Communicates information or
ideas in ways that are
frequently incomplete,
confusing and not appropriate
to the conventions of the
discipline
Academic convention 5 % Excellent discrimination of
sources, referencing
consistent and all
presentation
equirements followed
Thorough discrimination
of sources, referencing
consistent and all
presentation
equirements followed
Skillful discrimination of
sources, referencing some
inconsistency and
presentation
equirements followed
Weak discrimination of
sources, inconsistent
eferencing and
presentation requirements
not adhered to
Poor discrimination of
sources, referencing is missing
or have major flaws and
presentation requirements
not adhered to
Smith, Z., & Hawthorn XXXXXXXXXXBelow knee TED stockings compared to thigh high stocking in
preventing DVT. Hospital, 6(32), XXXXXXXXXXDoi: 1564ert9g34u59g3
Smith and Hawthorn used a quantitative study design to compare the effectiveness of below-
knee ted stockings to thigh high stocking in preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in hospitalised
patients. The authors argued that there was very little evidence supporting the use of thigh high
stockings and that their use was associated with more complications such as pressure injuries. In
this study, the authors used a randomised controlled trial design and patients were randomly
allocated to receive either the below-knee or thigh-high TED stockings. All patients admitted to a
surgical ward were approached to participate in the study. A total of 2034 patients were
ecruited into this study out of 3000 patients approached to participate.
The study protocol involved patients wearing the stockings during the day and night and were
only to be removed during showering. Patients were monitored for DVTs during their
hospitalisation, and the frequency of DVTs was compared between the two groups. The results
from this study showed no significant difference between rates of DVT in patients who were
allocated below-knee stocking and thigh high stockings. Smith and Hawthorn also report that 48
patients who were allocated thigh high stockings developed complications, ranging from mild
i
itation to more serious pressure injuries. No such complications were reported in the below-
knee stocking group.
The study by Smith and Hawthorn has several strengths. Firstly, it’s one of the few studies to
compare below-knee stockings to thigh high stockings, which helps to add to the evidence base
supporting their use. Secondly, this study used a large study population which helps to build
confidence in the study outcomes. Unfortunately, there are several limitations to this study that
need to be acknowledged. Firstly, it is unclear whether true randomisation of study participants
occu
ed as this is not described in the research article. When randomisation does not occur, this
can introduce bias into the results. Secondly, only surgical patients were used in this study, which
means the results could not be easily generalised to other populations such as medical or
paediatric patients. Lastly, there is no description of how the researchers ensured patients
adhered to the study protocol, which means it is possible some patients did not wear their
stockings all the time. Overall this article adds to the growing body of research supporting the use
of below-knee TED stockings, but due to the limitations mentioned, stronger evidence is needed
to support a practice change.
