Question Looking for a scholarly response with 2 references to the 2 statementsbelow: luzTo what degree does the implementation of Mehta’s medication reminder messaging system impact systolic blood pressure readings when compared to current practice among adult patients with hypertension in an outpatient clinic in suburban Florida? Both descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized in the data analysis of this project. Categorical variables such as the age of the participants were described with frequency percentages. Continuous variables such as pre-and-post systolic blood pressure readings will be described with means. A paired sample t-test will be used to determine the significant difference in the pre-and post- intervention systolic blood pressure readings. This project will determine the statistical significance of the test using the probability values (p-value). After, collecting and statistically analyzing pre-and- post intervention data, results will be summarized by stating the purpose of the report as well as the data analyzed and how the report answered the clinical question. 1. How will you separate factual information in the data from your observations? The DNP learner will separate factual information on the data collected using text, graphs and tables. This will promote the organization of information collected. Also, using tables and graphs would allow the DNP learner to demonstrate patterns and relationships of the data. Data are usually collected in a raw format and thus the inherent information is difficult to understand (In & Lee, 2017). Therefore, raw data need to be summarized, processed and analyzed (In & lee, 2017). 2. Provide a graphic or table of the results Number of Participants in each group: Age Group Frequency 49-50 2 51-60 7 61-70 12 71-80 7 81-90 3 (Candy) Results – Write a summary of Chapter 4. The Results section provides a concise summary of the outcome of the clinical question(s) in the project. Briefly restate the clinical question, the data analysis performed, and the statistical results of the analysis. Describe how you will summarize the data. Results The results section contains the analysis of intervention for comparing the pre and post-intervention data. Nursing at the site played a role in the education of pre colonoscopy instructions. The primary investigator gave educational instructions to RN’s and NP participants and key stakeholders identified by the site. The endoscopy program implemented the PPR intervention to the sample participants. The PPR intervention was sent out two weeks prior to a scheduled colonoscopy. This occurred once the PPR had been assigned through ANNIE at the site for text messaging. The results of the DPI project are enclosed in this section. The clinical question is answered in the first part of the results section. The second part will review any other findings as a result of the PPR intervention. Colonoscopy procedure screening completions were gathered from the EHR to guide answering the clinical question: In the four weeks after the education of the PPR intervention to RN and NP staff, will the adult sample keep their colonoscopy appointment and not cancel? A cancellation table below has the descriptive statistics table of screening and cancellations for the colonoscopy cancellations and screenings completed for both pre-intervention and post-intervention data. The findings are written to demonstrate the efficacy of the PPR intervention (Kim & Cribbie, 2017). The primary outcome measurement was analyzed between the pre and post-intervention groups. The independent Chi-square test was performed to aid comparative analysis. This data answered the clinical question: To what degree does the implementation of PPR impact the colonoscopy screening rate when compared to standard practice among veterans in an outpatient setting in Colorado? The Chi-Square test results demonstrate the statistical difference between the pre and post-intervention groups (Brown et al.,2018). The p-value is given from the Chi-Square table in this section as P=.038. The cancellation rate went from 18.2% to 0%. 2. How will you separate factual information in the data from your observations? Provide a graphic or table of the results. Quantitative tables presented and discussed in this section to further demonstrate answering the clinical question. The PPR intervention significantly improved the colonoscopy screening rate. A statistician was hired for the DPI. The statistician helped determine the recommended tests to perform to answer the clinical question. The statistician helped determine the table layout and presentation of this section. The cancellation for each group was key to demonstrate improvement. Cancellation Group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Preintervention Valid Attend 27 81.8 81.8 81.8 Cancel 6 18.2 18.2 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 Postintervention Valid Attend 21 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.295a 1 .038 Continuity Correctionb 2.652 1 .103 Likelihood Ratio 6.381 1 .012 Fisher’s Exact Test .071 .043 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.216 1 .040 N of Valid Cases 54 References Brown, A. W., Kaiser, K. A., & Allison, D. B. (2018). Issues with data and Analysis: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(11). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708279115 Kim, Y. J., & Cribbie, R. A. (2017). ANOVA and the variance homogeneity assumption: Exploring a better gatekeeper. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12103 Health Science Science Nursing NURSING DNP965 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)

Question Looking for a scholarly response with 2 references to the 2 statementsbelow: luzTo what degree does the implementation of Mehta’s medication reminder messaging system impact systolic blood pressure readings when compared to current practice among adult patients with hypertension in an outpatient clinic in suburban Florida? Both descriptive and inferential statistics were utilized in the data analysis of this project. Categorical variables such as the age of the participants were described with frequency percentages. Continuous variables such as pre-and-post systolic blood pressure readings will be described with means. A paired sample t-test will be used to determine the significant difference in the pre-and post- intervention systolic blood pressure readings. This project will determine the statistical significance of the test using the probability values (p-value). After, collecting and statistically analyzing pre-and- post intervention data, results will be summarized by stating the purpose of the report as well as the data analyzed and how the report answered the clinical question. 1. How will you separate factual information in the data from your observations? The DNP learner will separate factual information on the data collected using text, graphs and tables. This will promote the organization of information collected. Also, using tables and graphs would allow the DNP learner to demonstrate patterns and relationships of the data. Data are usually collected in a raw format and thus the inherent information is difficult to understand (In & Lee, 2017). Therefore, raw data need to be summarized, processed and analyzed (In & lee, 2017). 2. Provide a graphic or table of the results Number of Participants in each group: Age Group Frequency 49-50 2 51-60 7 61-70 12 71-80 7 81-90 3 (Candy) Results – Write a summary of Chapter 4. The Results section provides a concise summary of the outcome of the clinical question(s) in the project. Briefly restate the clinical question, the data analysis performed, and the statistical results of the analysis. Describe how you will summarize the data. Results The results section contains the analysis of intervention for comparing the pre and post-intervention data. Nursing at the site played a role in the education of pre colonoscopy instructions. The primary investigator gave educational instructions to RN’s and NP participants and key stakeholders identified by the site. The endoscopy program implemented the PPR intervention to the sample participants. The PPR intervention was sent out two weeks prior to a scheduled colonoscopy. This occurred once the PPR had been assigned through ANNIE at the site for text messaging. The results of the DPI project are enclosed in this section. The clinical question is answered in the first part of the results section. The second part will review any other findings as a result of the PPR intervention. Colonoscopy procedure screening completions were gathered from the EHR to guide answering the clinical question: In the four weeks after the education of the PPR intervention to RN and NP staff, will the adult sample keep their colonoscopy appointment and not cancel? A cancellation table below has the descriptive statistics table of screening and cancellations for the colonoscopy cancellations and screenings completed for both pre-intervention and post-intervention data. The findings are written to demonstrate the efficacy of the PPR intervention (Kim & Cribbie, 2017). The primary outcome measurement was analyzed between the pre and post-intervention groups. The independent Chi-square test was performed to aid comparative analysis. This data answered the clinical question: To what degree does the implementation of PPR impact the colonoscopy screening rate when compared to standard practice among veterans in an outpatient setting in Colorado? The Chi-Square test results demonstrate the statistical difference between the pre and post-intervention groups (Brown et al.,2018). The p-value is given from the Chi-Square table in this section as P=.038. The cancellation rate went from 18.2% to 0%. 2. How will you separate factual information in the data from your observations? Provide a graphic or table of the results. Quantitative tables presented and discussed in this section to further demonstrate answering the clinical question. The PPR intervention significantly improved the colonoscopy screening rate. A statistician was hired for the DPI. The statistician helped determine the recommended tests to perform to answer the clinical question. The statistician helped determine the table layout and presentation of this section. The cancellation for each group was key to demonstrate improvement. Cancellation Group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Preintervention Valid Attend 27 81.8 81.8 81.8 Cancel 6 18.2 18.2 100.0 Total 33 100.0 100.0 Postintervention Valid Attend 21 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.295a 1 .038 Continuity Correctionb 2.652 1 .103 Likelihood Ratio 6.381 1 .012 Fisher’s Exact Test .071 .043 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.216 1 .040 N of Valid Cases 54 References Brown, A. W., Kaiser, K. A., & Allison, D. B. (2018). Issues with data and Analysis: Errors, underlying themes, and potential solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(11). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708279115 Kim, Y. J., & Cribbie, R. A. (2017). ANOVA and the variance homogeneity assumption: Exploring a better gatekeeper. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12103 Health Science Science Nursing NURSING DNP965 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)