Negative pressure wound therapy – Pateints perspective

| December 19, 2015


The Review links to Module Learning Outcomes:
1 Develop a critical understanding of the research process, its principles and benefits to healthcare.
2. Critically evaluate strategies for collecting and appraising literature to conduct a coherent literature review.
3. Demonstrate a questioning and analytical approach to the utilization of research findings in practice, and a sound ability to

develop evidence-based recommendations for enhancing nursing care.

The extended literature review will enable students to develop advanced academic skills in critically evaluating an aspect of nursing

practice and to develop strategies for implementing change through the use of evidence based practice.

The aim of the literature review is to develop the analytical and evaluative skills of the student to enable them to contribute to the

development of nursing practice and clinical effectiveness.
Assessment Brief

The written assessment for this module takes the form of an extended literature review. The review is ‘extended’ to include a critical

account of the methods adopted in carrying out the review of the literature.

The following sections should be included in the review. The recommended words in brackets are to give a rough idea of weighting – they do

not have to be strictly adhered to. See the Pie Chart for approximate weighting as they relate to the Extended Literature Review.
Title (Sentence)
Acknowledgements: (paragraph)
Abstract: (200 words)
A summary of the key issues in the Project
Introduction: (200 words)
This should take a sweeping look at the key issues and their sequence
as they are addressed in your review.
Focus question and rationale: (700 words)
You should provide a rationale for the chosen focus of the review highlighting the professional, clinical and conceptual relevance

of your review question. This section should clearly articulate the aspect of practice that will be at the centre of the project

and how the literature review will contribute to its evaluation. Your rationale should make reference to current policies related

to evidence based practice and the role of extended literature reviews in that process.
Methodology: (1500-2000 words)
This section needs to clearly demonstrate how you selected your articles, why you went from the large number of hits of the initial review

to the articles you are going to use as core articles. The papers need to be primary papers.
A critical evaluation of a systematic approach to the collection and analysis of evidence underpinning an identified aspect of practice.

You should provide a critical account of the process you undertook. This section should include;
• Discussion of the strengths and limitations of bibliographic aids
• Discussion of the issues that influenced the depth and breadth of the literature coverage
• How the relevance of the material was determined, inclusion and exclusion
• How material was analysed and conclusions drawn
• Discussion of sources of potential bias.
• Application of Hierarchy of evidence and other quality control measures, for example how the articles demonstrate their

reliability and validity.
Chapters: (4000 words)
This is a critical discussion of all the material analysed, demonstrating a synthesis of information from the range of sources accessed.

The work needs to demonstrate the validity of the themes and how these relate to the evidence and to practice. This part of the project

will need to be divided into chapters. The number of chapters will be determined by the findings of the review. Subheadings may be

required. The document should read as one coherent piece of work, therefore, the chapters should be logically ordered with a link given to

conclude one chapter and to lead to the next. The reader needs to be guided through the review with clear ‘signposts’ throughout,

summarising issues and showing a good understanding of how all the issues raised in the review are related to one another. Discussing the

findings of the care articles (papers) in order to evaluate, their individual and collective reliability and the where or how they differ

from one another.
Strengths and limitations of this extended literature review: (750 words)
Within this discussion you should discuss how successfully you have addressed you review question and thereby the practice significance of

your findings. You should consider both strengths and weaknesses of your project.
Implications/Recommendations for Nursing Practice (500 words)
You should include a critical discussion of the implications for nursing practice arising out of the findings of the review.
Conclusions (250 words)
You should end your project by looking back over the arguments you have developed and summarising the main points of your analysis.
You are encouraged to use Appendices, to demonstrate the processes you went through to get to be able to make your arguments, for example

the summary chart of the articles. Additionally screen shots of where searches were completed are acceptable. The appendices are not

included in the word count.

Submission :
The final project should be submitted electronically.

The following should be used to guide the presentation of your project.

• You must ensure that the length of your project conforms to the word limit, which should be declared, this should exclude the

reference list and the appendices.
• Your project should be typed, double spaced with at least 2.5cm margins. It should be left hand justified.
• The first page should contain:
• Project title
• Name of student
• Date (month and year) of submission
• The phrase “Submitted in part fulfilment of the B.Sc. (Hons) Pre-Registration Nursing
• Word Count (excluding references and appendices)

There should then be separate pages for the full list of contents of chapter headings and a separate contents list for tables, charts and

diagrams. The main body of the project should follow, every section should start on a new page. The reference list and appendices should

be included at the end. Referencing must follow the Faculty Harvard System.

The work can be single side printed or double side printed, this is upto you.

The University retains ownership of the intellectual property within students’ work. Where appropriate and formally agreed, special

arrangements arising from a sharing of intellectual property rights, copyright issues, industrial secrecy or ethical issues should be

scrupulously established. This may involve all third parties undertaking to sign confidentiality agreements.

Please ensure that, in line with University requirements, you retain a copy of your work.

NB As well as the specific guidelines above, all assessments will be marked in the light of the Faculty Marking Guidelines at level 6,

refer to your handbook for these.
Guidelines for Marking Projects

The following set of guidelines has been devised to clarify the marking process of Level 6 Project modules.

• The first marker will be a field specific lecturer and the second marker will be identified from within the team of markers

identified for NS603.

• Each project must be double blind marked: this means that each marker must mark the project using the project marking criteria

alongside the Society and Health marking criteria/grids for level 6.

• Each marker should award a mark for each category and a final mark independently of one another; these sheets should be available

for the moderation event.

• Both markers should arrange a meeting where they discuss their comments and marks awarded and agree a final mark and comments to

be given to the student; this should then be entered electronically.

• If the markers cannot agree a third opinion should be sought; usually the module leader will appoint someone.

• The course leader should be advised as to the nature of the disagreement and will usually either act as the third marker or

identify an appropriate person to do so.

• Both markers should acknowledge the final feedback sheet.

The markers should be invited to the moderation event. This allows for the marks to be presented to a wider, cross course audience and

serves as an opportunity to widen and generally develop supervision and marking skills.

To ensure equity and parity of marking the responsibility of the final moderation of the projects lies with the course and module leaders.

Category: Essay

About the Author (Author Profile)