Scholarly Writing Case

USE THE ATTACHED CHECKLIST FOR THIS CASE ASSIGNMENT. YOU ARE USING THE CASE ASSIGNMENT I REQUEST YOU RIGHT. PLEASE ADD YOUR OUTLINE. Module 5 - Case REVISING SCHOLARLY PAPERS Assignment Expectations Use the Revision Checklist referenced in your Background readings to review and refine your Module 5 SLP, which comprises your final paper for this course. Give an overall assessment of your SLP by addressing the questions on the checklist. For instance, you could start with an introduction explaining what the purpose of the paper is and then use short headings for the individual components (Subject, Audience, Purpose, Organization, Paragraphing, etc.) and finish with a conclusion. In the end, the assignment should clearly show that you evaluated your SLP with all the questions in mind and highlight some of the changes you might have made to your SLP based as a result of your application of the checklist. Upload the resultant document at the conclusion of this module. Assignment Expectations Length: The written component of this assignment should be 4-5 pages long (double-spaced). Organization: Subheadings should be used to organize your paper according to the questions. Grammar and Spelling: While no points are deducted for minor errors, assignments are expected to adhere to standard guidelines of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence syntax. Points may be deducted if grammar and spelling impact clarity. The following items will be assessed in particular: • Achievement of learning outcomes for this Case Assignment. • Relevance—All content is connected to the question. • Precision—Specific question is addressed. Statements, facts, and statistics are specific and accurate. • Depth of discussion—Points that lead to deeper issues are presented and integrated. • Breadth—Multiple perspectives and references, and multiple issues/factors are considered. • Evidence—Points are well supported with facts, statistics, and references. • Logic—Discussion makes sense; conclusions are logically supported by premises, statements, or factual information. • Clarity—Writing is concise and understandable and contains sufficient detail or examples. Check list to use: Subject, Audience, Purpose • What’s the most important thing I want to say about my subject? • Who am I writing this paper for? What would my reader want to know about the subject? What does my reader already know about it? • Why do I think the subject is worth writing about? Will my reader think the paper was worth reading? • What verb explains what I’m trying to do in this paper (tell a story, compare X and Y, describe Z)? • Does my first paragraph answer questions 1-4? If not, why not? Organization 1. How many specific points do I make about my subject? Did I overlap or repeat any points? Did I leave my points out or add some that aren’t relevant to the main idea? 2. How many paragraphs did I use to talk about each point? 3. Why did I talk about them in this order? Should the order be changed? 4. How did I get from one point to the next? What signposts did I give the reader? Paragraphing (Ask these questions of every paragraph) 1. What job is this paragraph supposed to do? How does it relate to the paragraph before and after it? 2. What’s the topic idea? Will my reader have trouble finding it? 3. How many sentences did it take to develop the topic idea? Can I substitute better examples, reasons, or details? 4. How well does the paragraph hold together? How many levels of generality does it have? Are the sentences different lengths and types? Do I need transitions? When I read the paragraph out loud, did it flow smoothly? Sentences (Ask these questions of every sentence) 1. Which sentences in my paper do I like the most? The least? 2. Can my reader “see” what I’m saying? What words could I substitute for people, things, this/that, aspect, etc.? 3. Is this sentence “fat”? 4. Can I combine this sentence with another one? 5. Can I add adjectives and adverbs or find a more lively verb? Things to Check Last 1. Did I check spelling and punctuation? What kinds of grammar or punctuation problems did I have in my last paper? 2. How does my paper end? Did I keep the promises I made to my reader at the beginning of the paper? 3. When I read the assignment again, did I miss anything? 4. What do I like best about his paper? What do I need to work on in the next paper? – from A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers by Erika Lindemann SLP assignment: OUTLINE E. Thesis of the paper 2. Emergency departments helping patients quit smoking (iii) Introduction (iv) Thesis F. The study 4. Understanding perceptions 5. Study Settings and Population Description 6. Study protocol G. Conclusion H. References A. Thesis of the Paper 1. Emergency department helping patients quit smoking (i) Introduction This is a very informative paper and dwells on the interventions that the emergency department staffs can implement in helping patients that are smokers quit. As such, thesis of the authors of this paper is hinged on creating guidelines that will help both the emergency physicians and the emergency nurses guide their patients that are smokers to quit (Katz et al., 2014). Past efforts have been marred with inconsistencies due to the perception of the staffs. Understanding and redefining the perceptions would be one of the most crucial steps towards the success of smoking cessation and counseling interventions (Clinicaltrials.gov, 2014). (ii) Thesis Thesis of the paper comes out quite clearly in the second and third paragraph of the introduction of the paper. B. The Study 1. Understanding Perceptions In the third paragraph of the paper, the authors dwell on the fact that, to improve the impact of the smoking cessation by the staff on their patients, a multifaceted team would have to be involved. At the same time the authors bring out the fact that understanding the perceptions of the emergency physicians and the nurses would increase the likelihood of improving their interventions in the smoking cessation programs (Katz et al., 2014). In support of this premise, the authors state that the main objective of the paper, relates to understanding the perceptions of the emergency physicians and nurses (Medscape.org, 2014). At the same time the paper will also try to bring out the barriers that exists against the involvement of a multifaceted team with close reference to the 5A’s framework; Ask-Advise-Assess-Assist-Arrange. 2. Study Settings and Population Description The fifth paragraph of the paper relates to the settings of the study and the population description. In the paragraph, the authors mention the fact that, the physicians and the nurses were drawn from two hospitals. One of the hospitals was a university hospital and the other was a large community hospital. The university hospital according to the paragraph has residency training program in emergencies and used the electronic records register. The community hospital on the other hand had private physicians and used paper charting records. Both hospitals had a huge turnover of emergency department patients and a good number of patients did not have insurance (Katz et al., 2014). The study was carried out on 73 emergency nurses and 49 emergency physicians. Nursing assistants were not included as they are not allowed to educate patients. To further pass the premise of the paragraph to the readers, the authors also included a table named Table 1. The table describes the study sites with respect to the variables andpatients’ characteristics. 3. Study Protocol In the seventh paragraph, the authors of the paper explain the study protocol. In this paragraph, the authors go into the detail of how the interviews were conducted to completion. According to the authors, the interviewers were either MA or PhD level individuals. They also had in-depth knowledge of qualitative methods of research and had never met with the participants before (Clinicaltrials.gov, 2014). The interviewers had to carry out a mock interview with one nurse and/or physicians before the actual interviews. All of the nurses and physicians that were involved in the mock interviews did not participate in the actual interviews (Katz et al., 2014). The actual interviews lasted an average of 18 minutes, where the participants explained their usual interventions, perceptions of the study interventions and their perceptions on the role of emergency staff in smoking cessation smoking cessation. At the same time the participants were asked whether they would use the 5A’s framework in their interventions after the study. C. Conclusion In conclusion, the authors bring out the fact that implementation of smoking cessation experiences a series of challenges within the emergency department. It also came out that the emergency nurses are willing to offer brief smoking cessation guidelines to the patients, but the emergency physicians also have to chip in their efforts (Katz et al., 2014). The policies relating to workflow, teamwork and medication on smoking cessation also need to be redefined for greater impact (Medscape.org, 2014). D. References Clinicaltrials.gov,. (2014). The Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Guidelines in the Emergency Department - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov. Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://clinicaltrials(dot)gov/show/NCT00756704. Katz, D., Paez, M., Reisinger, H., Gillette, M., Weg, M., & Titler, M. et al. (2014). Implementation of smoking cessation guidelines in the emergency department: a qualitative study of staff perceptions. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 9(1), 1. doi:10.1186/1940-0640-9-1. Medscape.org,. (2014). Methods to Facilitate Smoking Cessation: Guidelines and Treatment.... Retrieved 1 September 2014, from http://www(dot)medscape(dot)org/viewarticle/41853