While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone change proposal project, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Literature Review
Just from $13/Page
A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Statement Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a 750-1,000 word review that includes the following sections:
- Title page
- Introduction section
- A comparison of research questions
- A comparison of sample populations
- A comparison of the limitations of the study
- A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Running Head: PICOT STATEMENT PAPER 1
PICOT STATEMENT PAPER 5
PICOT Statement Paper
Grand Canyon University
Joyce Nwakor
12/17/19
Introduction
Hand hygiene (HH) is an essential tool in reducing the spread of infections among patients and the healthcare professionals in the clinical setting. Multiple studies have however showed that healthcare professionals do not comply with the HH guidelines provided by the World Health Organization. This has led to increased healthcare related infections resulting in increased mortality rates. There are various factors that lead to non-compliance of the World Health Organization guidelines such as work environment and behavioral motivational factors. This shows that more needs to do in creating awareness among healthcare professionals about the importance of hand hygiene and patient safety (Anna, & Sobala, 2013).
PICOT Statement
For patients and healthcare workers in the hospital (p) does hand washing using soap and water (I) compared to an alcohol hand-based rub (C) reduce hospital acquired infection (O) within a period of stay in the hospital (T).
Evidence Based solution
Multiple studies show that hand washing protocol in the healthcare setting is very effectual in reducing healthcare related infections. The practice of cleaning hand before and after attending patients can help to reduce the spread of germs in hospitals. Healthcare professionals wash their hands more than half times they should on average (Deochand & Deochand, 2016). This increases the chances of spreading healthcare acquired infection (Deochand & Deochand, 2016). While hand washing protocol is useful, alcohol-based solution is more effective as it kills most of the germs that can be transmitted in the healthcare setting (Deochand & Deochand, 2016). Since alcohol-based solution is a bit expensive, patients and healthcare workers should reduce the spread of germs by complying with the hand washing protocol (Deochand & Deochand, 2016).
Nursing Intervention
Nurses interact with patients more often than other healthcare professionals and this exposes them to hospital acquired infections. For this reason, nurses should ensure all their practices are based on patient education, nursing research and are evidence based. Nurses should apply universal precautions to ensure they work in a safe environment (Sung-Ching et al., 2013). Under the universal precaution guidelines, nurse practitioners must wear protective gear before coming into contact with any patient (Sung-Ching et al., 2013). Nurses must also wash their hands before and after interacting with patients. Alcohol based solution can be used as a substitute (Sung-Ching et al., 2013).
Patient care
Patients are very vulnerable to hospital acquired infections. Healthcare providers should create awareness among patients about the importance of hand hygiene. Patients must clean their hands regularly in the healthcare setting. They should also ask those people visiting them to ensure that they clean their hand before visiting and after living patient wards. This ensures that visitors to not spread diseases to the patients and also the patients do not infect those visiting them. Healthcare workers must put the necessary measures to facilitate the hand washing protocol (Chatfield et al., 2016).
Healthcare agency
The healthcare agency must ensure their facilities have enough hand washing points to facilitate hand washing protocol. Patients and healthcare professionals will not be able to clean their hands as required if there are not enough areas designated for hand washing. Healthcare providers should also provide alcohol-based solutions in case there is any issue to do with the designated hand washing points. The agency should also ensure that all patients understand the importance of HH while in the healthcare setting. This plays a significant role in reducing the spreading of healthcare related infections (Dyson et al., 2013). Healthcare agencies should also train their healthcare professionals to increase compliance to the hand washing protocol (Dyson et al., 2013).
Nursing practice
Combining hand washing protocol and alcohol-based solutions can help prevent most of the hospital acquired infections increasing patient safety and better overall patient outcomes (Sendall, McCosker & Halton, 2019). When patient maintain hand hygiene it will be difficult for them to spread hospital acquired infection. The same applies to healthcare professionals. A safe healthcare environment depends on the ability of both the patients and healthcare professionals to comply with the hand washing protocol. Increasing awareness of the importance of HH in the hospitals may increase compliance to the WHO guidelines reducing the spread of infections (Sendall, McCosker & Halton, 2019).
References
Anna, G. P & Sobala, W. (2013). Observance of hand washing procedures performed by the medical personnel before patient contact part 1 Retrieved from international journal of occupational medicine and environmental health 2013
Chatfield, S. L., Nolan, R., Crawford, H., & Hallam, J. S. (2016). Experiences of hand hygiene among acute care nurses: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. SAGE open medicine, 4, 2050312116675098.
Deochand, N., & Deochand, M. E. (2016). Brief Report on Hand-Hygiene Monitoring Systems: A Pilot Study of a Computer-Assisted Image Analysis Technique. Journal of environmental health, 78(10).
Dyson, J., Lawton, R., Jackson, C., & Cheater, F. (2013). Development of a theory-based instrument to identify barriers and levers to best hand hygiene practice among healthcare practitioners. Implementation Science, 8(1), 111.
Sendall, M. C., McCosker, L. K., & Halton, K. (2019). Cleaning Staff’s Attitudes about Hand Hygiene in a Metropolitan Hospital in Australia: A Qualitative Study. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(6), 1067.
Sung-Ching, P., Tien, K. L., Hung, I., Yu-Jiun, L., Wang-Huei, S., Wang, M. J., & Yee-Chun, C. (2013). Compliance of Health Care Workers with Hand Hygiene Practices: Independent Advantages of Overt and Covert Observers. PLoS One, 8(1), e53746.
LiteratureEvaluation Table
Student Name: Joyce Nwakor
PICOT Question: For patients and healthcare workers in the hospital (p) does hand washing protocol (I) compared to an alcohol-based solution (C) reduce hospital-acquired infection (O) within a period of stay in the hospital (T)
|
|
Criteria
|
Article 1
QUANT
|
Article 2
QUANT
|
Article 3
QUANT
|
Article 4
REVIEW
|
|
|
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and
Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
|
Daisy, V
.
T., & Sreedevi, T. R.
Link:
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=4&sid=72619044-c224-4bc5-9982-cf6c3953f7d2%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=110819455&db=ccm
|
Fox, C., Wavra, T., Drake, D. A., Mulligan, D., Bennett, Y. P., Nelson, C., … Bader, M. K. (2015). Use of a Patient Hand Hygiene Protocol to Reduce Hospital-Acquired Infections and Improve Nurses’ Hand Washing. American Journal of Critical Care, 24(3), 216-224. doi:10.4037/ajcc2015898
|
Knighton, S. (2017). The Use of Instructional Technology to Increase Independent Patient Hand Hygiene Practice of Hospitalized Adults in an Acute Care Setting. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 4(suppl_1), S411-S412. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1029
|
João Manuel Garcia do Nascimento Graveto, Rita Isabel Figueira Rebola, Elisabete Amado Fernandes, & Paulo Jorge dos Santos Costa. Link:
https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0239
|
|
|
Article Title and Year Published
|
Effectiveness of a Multi-Component Educational Intervention on Knowledge and Compliance with Hand Hygiene among Nurses in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.
2015
|
Use of a Patient Hand Hygiene Protocol to Reduce Hospital-Acquired Infections and Improve Nurses’ Hand Washing
Published May 2015
|
The Use of Instructional Technology to Increase Independent Patient Hand Hygiene Practice of Hospitalized Adults in an Acute Care Setting. Open Forum Infectious Diseases.
Published in 2017
|
Hand hygiene: nurses’ adherence after training.
2018
|
|
|
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes/Aim of Study
|
The study was aimed to assess the effectiveness of a multi-component educational intervention on the knowledge and compliance with hand hygiene guidelines among nurses working in Neonatal Intensive Care Units.
|
The research investigated the reduction of infections in the hospital through observation of hand hygiene.
|
What handwashing procedures were performed by the medical personnel before patient contact part 1.
|
What is the level of effectiveness of training (I) in improving nurses’(P) adherence to hand hygiene(O)?”.
|
|
|
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
|
A pre-experimental pre-test post-test design was adopted for the study
. QUANT
|
Pre-experimental study design
. QUANT
|
A quantitative study was done using quasi observational data
|
Qualitative/ quantitative studies
This is a review
|
|
|
Setting/Sample
|
This study was conducted in 3 level III NICUs of selected private hospitals in Kerala
Total sample comprises of 60 nurses working in NICUs selected through purposive sampling technique from selected hospitals.
|
Two hospitals were used in the research
|
120 medical staff (Nurses and Physicians).
|
Health professionals working at the intensive care unit of a hospital.
|
|
|
Methods: Intervention/Instruments
|
The data was collected from 60 nurses working in 3 level III Neonatal Intensive Care Units of selected private hospitals in Kerala.
|
Qualitative research design.
|
Quasi-observational study
|
This integrative literature review was conducted following Cochrane’s PICOD strategy (Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Design.
Training nurses to adhere to handwashing.
|
|
|
Analysis
|
The data collection tool consisted of a knowledge questionnaire and an observation checklist to assess the hand hygiene compliance, developed based on World Health Organization hand hygiene guidelines.
|
The study was conducted across two health facilities
.
|
Technology played a key role in improving the hands’ hygiene through the development of equipment that encouraged nurses to wash their hands.
.
|
Observational studies collected and analyzed.
|
|
|
Key Findings
|
Before the implementation of educational intervention, majority, (56.66%) had only moderate knowledge on hand hygiene and none of them had good level of knowledge. With regard to compliance with hand hygiene guidelines, majority, (65%) demonstrated poor compliance while none of them showed good compliance. There was a statistically significant improvement in the nurse’s level of knowledge and compliance with hand hygiene guidelines after the completion of the multi-component educational intervention (P<0.001).
|
Observation of hand hygiene reduced the rate of new infections within the hospitals.
.
|
The average compliance of medical personnel to hand hygiene was as low as 5.2%.
Medical personnel washed their hand twice less frequently when feeding patients, taking blood samples and insertion of a vascular catheter.
Most substituted gloves for handwashing.
|
Nurses showed inadequate hand hygiene techniques and adherence during their daily care routines. The reasons for this include the lack of adequate facilities for washing and drying hands inside the clinical areas, the lack of resources, the time factor, the existence of solutions of continuity in hands, and excessive workload.
|
|
|
Recommendations
|
Findings of the study recommends that hospitals should implement hand hygiene promotion programs among nurses by using multiple approaches and persistent encouragement and interventions in order to achieve sustained high level of appropriate hand hygiene practices among nurses working in various units of hospital settings.
|
The research revealed that there is a need for a collective effort from the nurses themselves and the hospitals to constantly remind the staff about hand washing.
|
Short handwashing times and noncompliance indicate the need for increased knowledge on hand hygiene and motivation to its adherence
.
|
Nursing professionals should continuously update and monitor their knowledge and transfer it into clinical practice.
Quality can only be achieved through the implementation, training, and development of effective and adequate hand hygiene techniques. Some measures are perfectly feasible, such as the implementation of standard infection control measures; a greater dissemination of the importance of hand hygiene through training actions and flyers/posters placed in strategic locations.
|
|
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone Project
|
Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in neonatal intensive care units. This article supports evidence-based practice because appropriate hand hygiene is singled out as the most important measure in preventing these infections.
|
The article explained the need for collaboration among the nurses to ensure no new infections that arise from lack of hand hygiene.
|
The article shows the results of a study done on hand hygiene techniques performed by health providers before patient contact
|
Handwashing adherence guidelines are important to improve this process, set targets for controlling HAI risks, and train teams in the use of infection prevention measures.
|
Criteria
|
Article 5
QUANT
|
Article 6
QUANT
|
Article 7
QUANT
|
Article 8
|
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and
Permalink or Working Link to Access Article
Thoa, V. T. H., Van Trang, D. T., Tien, N. P., Van, D. T., Wertheim, H. F., & Son, N. T.
Link:
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=72619044-c224-4bc5-9982-cf6c3953f7d2%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=S0196655315008792&db=edselp
AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control 1 December 2015 43(12):e93-e99
|
Lawal, T., Monsudi, K., Zubayr, B., Michael, G., Duru, C., Ibrahim, Z., & Aliyu, I.
Link:
https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.4103/ijhas.IJHASpass:159_17
|
Niyonzima, V., Brennaman, L., & Beinempaka, F.
Link: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=129292283&site=eds-live&scope=site
|
Crawford, H., & Hallam, J. S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312116675098Phan, H. T., Tran, H. T. T., Tran, H. T. M., Dinh, A. P. P., Ngo, H. T., Theorell-Haglow, J., & Gordon, C. J.
Link: https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3029-5
|
Article Title and Year Published
|
Cost-effectiveness of a hand hygiene program on health care–associated infections in intensive care patients at tertiary care hospital in Vietnam.
2015
|
Hand hygiene practices among nurses in health facility in a semi-urban setting.
2018
|
Practice and compliance
of essential handwashing
among healthcare workers at a regional referral hospital in Uganda: A quality improvement and evidence-based practice.
2018
|
2016 An educational intervention to improve hand hygiene compliance
2018
|
Research Questions (Qualitative)/Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes/Aim of Study
|
Assess the cost-effectiveness of a HH program in a large tertiary Vietnamese hospital.
|
Determine the knowledge and practices of hand hygiene among nurses in our institution.
|
Assess the availability and suitability of essential hand washing facilities, assess essential hand washing practice and compliance among healthcare workers (HCWs) on surgical and medical ED, ICU, medical and surgical general wards
|
The purpose of the research was to capture the experiences of HH among acute care nurses The aim of this study was to determine hand hygiene compliance following an educational program in an obstetric and gynecological hospital in Vietnam.
|
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative)
|
Quantitative
quasi experimental design was used.
This was a before and after study of a hand hygiene program where HH compliance, incidence of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), and costs were analyzed.
|
Quantitative
|
The study employed a cross sectional design and involved HCWs who were providing care to patients admitted in the selected units.
|
Qualitative approach-Interview Mixed method
|
Setting/Sample
|
The HH program was implemented in 2 intensive care and 15 critical care units.
|
This study involves 113 nurses of federal Medical Centre Birnin Kebbi, Kebbi State, Nigeria and it was conducted over 12 weeks.
|
The study was conducted at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in southwestern Uganda. The study was conducted in the five units that specifically treat critically ill patients: medical and surgical emergency (ED), ICU, and surgical and medical general wards.
|
Eight nurses in the US performing various roles were interviewed.Health care workers from neonatal intensive care, delivery suite and a surgical ward from Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam undertook a 4-h educational program targeting hand hygiene. Compliance was monitored monthly for six months following the intervention. Hand hygiene knowledge was assessed at baseline and after six months of the study.
|
Methods: Intervention/Instruments
|
This was a before and after study of a hand hygiene program where HH compliance, incidence of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), and costs were analyzed.
|
It was questionnaire based, which was pretested and self‑administered. Convenience sampling was adopted.
|
On each observational visit, two target patients were randomly selected using simple random numbers and all healthcare workers’ contacts with the selected patients were observed until the required sample size was reached.
|
Interview Participants completed a baseline questionnaire on HH knowledge and repeated this at 2 months after the intervention. The questionnaire consisted of 25 items with a combination of yes/no, multiple choice, and true/ false formatted question.
|
Analysis
|
Data collected before and after handwashing program intervention was analyzed.
.
|
Quantitative variables were summarized using means and standard deviations, qualitative variables were summarized using frequencies and percentages..percentages.
|
Hard data collection tools were used especially for collecting observation information and this could have resulted into Hawthorne effect.
Observational data collected, cross checked and analyzed.
|
An interpretative phenomenological analysis methodology was used.To analyze HH compliance over time, a multi-level mixed model analysis was used.
All hand-entered data were double-entered and screened for accuracy.
|
Key Findings
|
The HH compliance rate increased from 25.7% to 57.5% (P < .001). The incidence of patients with HAI decreased from 31.7% to 20.3% (P < .001) after the intervention. The mean cost for patients with HAI was $1,908, which was 2.5 times higher than the costs for patients without a HAI. The mean attributable cost of a HAI was $1,131. The total cost of the HH program was $12,570, which equates to a per-patient cost of $6.5. The cost-effectiveness was estimated at -$1,074 or $1,074 saved per HAI prevented. The cost-effectiveness was estimated at -$1,074 or $1,074 saved per HAI prevented. The intervention remained cost savings under various scenarios with lower HAI rates.
|
95 (99.0%) believed that hand‑washing is an important modality of reducing infection and cross‑ infection and only 1 (1%) did not believe in the role of hand‑washing in reducing the risk of infection. Although majority (76.0%) of respondents reported adhering to the principles of good hand hygiene, most (54.2%) of the respondents could not mention the steps in hand‑washing technique; 66 (68.8%) respondents wash their hands before attending to patients; however, almost all (99.0%) of the respondents wash their hands after attending to patients and after removing hand gloves.
|
Most of the wards had inadequate HH resources. The sink to bed ratio ranged from 1:1 to 1:33. HH resources were not always available. A total of 287 HH opportunities were observed from the five wards. The overall HH compliance before and after patient contact were 25.4% and 33.8% respectively. ANOVA showed ICU had significantly higher rates of HH than surgical ward before and after patient contact. HCWs in ICU and surgical emergency were 4.86 and 3.12 times respectively more likely to perform HH as compared to medical ward. No significant difference in HH compliance among professional categories before or after patient contact was detected.
|
There was a conflict between the perception of nurses and hospital management as far as HH is concerned.
The main finding of this study was that HH compliance rates improved significantly and were sustained over a six-month period following the intervention.
|
Recommendations
|
The HH program is an effective strategy in reducing the incidence of HAIs in intensive care units and is cost-effective in Vietnam. HH programs need to be encouraged across Vietnam and other countries.
|
Only 45.8% could correctly mention the steps in hand‑washing. This highlights the need to reeducate them on the steps in hand hygiene. Therefore, more proactive measures which should involve routine physical observation of the technique by superior officers with the aim of identifying and correcting defaulters should be encouraged.
|
The low rates of HH compliance reflect the need to put more emphasis on HH for improvement in the healthcare setting.
|
Infection prevention management needs to come up with proper training programs for HH for HAI to be done away with.Educational handwashing interventions should aim to measure hand hygiene compliance for an extended observation period to determine effectiveness. This hand hygiene model could be used in developing countries were resources are limited.
|
|
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP/Capstone
|
The hand hygiene program is an effective strategy in reducing the incidence of HAIs in intensive care units and is cost-effective in healthcare settings.
|
This article is based on nurse’s proficiency on hand‑washing technique; this is so because they are often exposed to the risk of coming in contact with biohazards.
|
The focus of this study is to assess the availability and suitability of essential hand washing facilities, assess essential hand washing practice and compliance among healthcare workers which supports evidence-based practice.
|
The study looked at how nurses perceived HH. The finding of the study is correlated to the project capstone as it provides an insight on how nurses, the primary study subject view HH in the fight against HAIThe current study’s educational program was developed in consultation with HH experts and used WHO training guidelines to frame the evidence-based support of training. Educational programs are effective at reducing HCAIs.
|
© 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
© 2017. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Rubic_Print_
| Format |
| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| NRS-490 |
NRS-490-O502 |
Literature Review |
100.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less than Satisfactory (75.00%) |
Satisfactory (79.00%) |
Good (89.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
80.0% |
| Introduction |
| 10.0% |
An introduction is not present. |
An introduction is present, but it does not relate to the body of the paper. |
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. There is nothing in the introduction to entice the reader to continue reading. |
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction provides incentive for the reader to continue reading. |
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction is intriguing and encourages the reader to continue reading. |
| Comparison of Research Questions |
|
| 20.0% |
No comparison of research questions is presented. |
A comparison of research questions is presented, but it is not valid. |
A cursory though valid comparison of research questions is presented. |
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of research questions is presented. |
A reflective and insightful comparison of research questions is presented. |
| Comparison of Sample Populations |
20.0%
No comparison of sample populations is presented. |
A comparison of sample populations is presented, but it is not valid. |
A cursory though valid comparison of sample populations is presented. |
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of sample populations is presented. |
A reflective and insightful comparison of sample populations is presented. |
| Comparison of the Limitations of the Study |
20.0%
No comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
A comparison of the limitations of the study is presented, but it is not valid. |
A cursory though valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
A moderately thorough and valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
A reflective and insightful comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. |
| Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research |
10.0%
No conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented, but they are not valid. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid, but they are cursory. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid and moderately thorough. |
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are reflective and insightful. |
| Organization and Effectiveness |
1
|
|
|
| 5.0% |
| Thesis Development and Purpose |
5.0%
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| Argument Logic and Construction |
5.0%
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
5.0%
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
Format 5.0%
| Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
2.0% |
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
| Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
3.0% |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| Total Weightage |
100% |
