NSG 4000 Applications of Evidence-Based Research: Concept Map Care Plan and Evidence Summary.

Course context

NSG 4000 at Galen College of Nursing emphasises the application of evidence-based research to clinical practice and often builds on concept map care plans and structured case work introduced in courses such as NUR 202 and NUR 3300. The assignment below asks students to create a focused concept map care plan for a selected patient scenario and to link each nursing diagnosis and intervention to current research in a short written summary.

Assessment overview

Students complete a two-part assignment that integrates concept mapping skills with basic evidence appraisal. Part A is a concept map care plan that organises nursing diagnoses, goals, interventions, and evaluation for a specific patient. Part B is a brief evidence summary that explains how research findings support the chosen nursing interventions.

• • Course/unit: NSG 4000 Applications of Evidence-Based Research (or equivalent higher-level Galen course).

• • Assessment type: Concept map care plan plus written evidence summary.
  • Length: Concept map (template-based) and a 750–1,000 word evidence summary.
  • Suggested weight: 15–20% of the course grade, adjustable to the syllabus.

Part A: Concept Map Care Plan (Template-Based)

Purpose

Students demonstrate that they can organise assessment data, prioritise NANDA-approved nursing diagnoses, and develop SMART goals and nursing interventions in a visual format commonly used in Galen care plan and concept map assignments. The concept map supports clear thinking about patient needs before students justify decisions with research in Part B.

Task description

1. Select or receive a patient scenario
   • • Use the faculty-provided case or choose an approved case from recent clinical experience such as a patient with heart failure, COPD, uncontrolled diabetes, or a musculoskeletal injury.
   • Gather relevant subjective and objective assessment data including history, vital signs, lab results, medications, and psychosocial information.
2. Complete the concept map template
   • Use a concept map template similar to those introduced in NUR 202 and NUR 3300, with sections for:
     • • Assessment and medical history.
       • Three NANDA-approved nursing diagnoses that reflect patient priorities.
     • • Short-term and long-term goals for each diagnosis, written as SMART goals.
       • At least three nursing interventions per diagnosis, with space to note the rationale.
       • Evaluation of each short-term and long-term goal, including whether goals have been met, partially met, or not met and brief evidence of the outcome.
3. Maintain clarity and clinical reasoning
   • • Write concise, patient-specific statements rather than generic phrases.
     • Ensure that each goal and intervention clearly links back to the assessment data and the pathophysiology of the patient’s condition.

Part B: Evidence Summary (750–1,000 words)

Purpose

Students explain why their chosen interventions and priorities are appropriate in light of current evidence. The summary connects the concept map to at least three peer-reviewed sources and demonstrates basic skills in reading and applying research consistent with Galen’s expectations for applications of evidence-based practice.

Task description

1. Identify priority diagnosis and outcomes
   • Choose one of the three nursing diagnoses from the concept map as the primary focus for the evidence summary.
   • Restate the short-term and long-term goals for that diagnosis and describe why this problem deserves priority for the selected patient.
2. Select and summarise evidence
   • • Locate at least three peer-reviewed research articles or evidence-based guidelines published between 2018 and 2025 that relate directly to the chosen diagnosis, patient outcomes, or planned interventions.
   • Summarise each source briefly, focusing on the clinical question, methods, key findings, and relevance to the patient’s needs.
3. Link evidence to interventions and goals
   • • Explain how the findings from each article support or refine the nursing interventions selected for the primary diagnosis.
     • Describe how the evidence helps justify your goals and evaluation criteria and how it might influence adjustments to the care plan if outcomes are not met.
4. Discuss patient-centered factors
   • • Consider how age, culture, health literacy, financial constraints, or family support may affect the patient’s ability to follow the care plan.
     • Describe at least one way that the plan can be adapted to respect the patient’s values and preferences while remaining consistent with the evidence.
5. Use clear academic writing and APA style
   • • Organise the summary with logical headings, coherent paragraphs, and accurate APA citation for all sources.
     • Use straightforward language and focus on clear explanation of how evidence shapes care decisions.

Rubric: Concept Map Care Plan and Evidence Summary (NSG 4000)

Criterion 1: Concept map structure and completeness

• • Exemplary: Concept map includes three clearly prioritised NANDA-approved nursing diagnoses, complete assessment data, SMART short-term and long-term goals for each diagnosis, and at least three specific interventions per diagnosis. All sections of the template are filled in with patient-centred detail.

• Proficient: Concept map includes required diagnoses, goals, and interventions with minor omissions or limited detail in one area.
• Developing: Concept map is partially complete, with some missing elements or generalised statements that do not fully reflect patient data.
• Limited: Concept map is incomplete, difficult to follow, or lacks clear connection to the patient scenario.

Criterion 2: Accuracy of nursing diagnoses, goals, and interventions

• • Exemplary: Nursing diagnoses align with NANDA-I classifications and patient data. Goals are specific, measurable, and time-bound, and interventions are appropriate, safe, and clearly connected to the diagnosis and expected outcomes.

• Proficient: Diagnoses, goals, and interventions are mostly accurate and clinically appropriate, with minor issues in wording or specificity.
• Developing: Some mismatches appear between assessment data, diagnoses, goals, or interventions. SMART elements are incomplete or inconsistently applied.
• Limited: Diagnoses and interventions show significant inaccuracies or do not correspond well to the scenario.

Criterion 3: Use of evidence in the summary

• • Exemplary: Evidence summary integrates at least three recent, relevant peer-reviewed sources. Summaries are clear and accurate, and the link between research findings, chosen interventions, and patient outcomes is well explained.

• Proficient: Uses the required number of sources with generally accurate summaries and reasonable connections to the care plan.
• Developing: Relies on fewer or less relevant sources, or provides only brief or vague summaries. Connections to interventions and goals are limited.
• Limited: Evidence is minimal, outdated, or not clearly applied to the care plan.

Criterion 4: Clinical reasoning and patient-centeredness

• • Exemplary: Provides a thoughtful rationale for prioritising the primary diagnosis, considering pathophysiology, risk, and patient preferences. Evidence is interpreted in light of the patient’s context, and adaptations are clearly explained.

• Proficient: Offers a clear rationale for diagnosis and goals with some attention to patient individuality.
• Developing: Mentions patient factors and reasoning but does so briefly or without clear integration into decision making.
• Limited: Offers little explanation of why diagnoses and interventions were chosen or how they reflect patient needs.

Criterion 5: Writing quality and APA format

• • Exemplary: Evidence summary is well organised, with clear paragraphs and consistent academic tone. Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are accurate. APA citation and referencing are correct for all sources.

• Proficient: Writing is generally clear with minor errors that do not affect meaning. APA format is mostly accurate.
• Developing: Writing has some issues with clarity or organisation. APA style shows recurring errors.
• Limited: Frequent writing or citation errors interfere with understanding.

Galen College of Nursing students often look for examples of NSG 4000 evidence-based research assignments that blend concept map care plans with short written summaries grounded in NANDA-I diagnoses, NIC interventions, and NOC outcomes.

Scholarly references

• • Oliveira, APD, Sousa, MRG, Lopes, MHBM & de Barros, ALBL 2024, ‘Nursing diagnoses for people hospitalized with heart failure: an integrative review’, Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem, vol. 77, e20230324, doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2023-0324.
  • Paneque-Sánchez-Toscano, I, Fernández-Gutiérrez, DA, Rodríguez-Gómez, S, García-Hernández, I & Muñoz-Jiménez, A 2025, ‘Prevalence of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses in patients with heart failure’, International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, early view.
  • Lake, ET, Sanders, J, Duan, R, Riman, KA, Schoenauer, KM & Chen, Y 2021, ‘The relationship between the nursing practice environment and five nursing-sensitive patient outcomes in acute care hospitals: a systematic review’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 2102–2121.
  • NANDA International 2021, Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification 2021–2023, Thieme, New York.
  • Moorhead, S, Swanson, E, Johnson, M & Maas, ML 2023, Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC), 7th edn, Elsevier.
  • Bulechek, GM, Butcher, HK, Dochterman, JM & Wagner, CM 2023, Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), 8th edn, Elsevier.