Skip to content
2024 NACNS Student Poster Judging
*Elements are "
Bolded
"
*
1.
Judge's Full Name
(Required.)
2.
Select the Student Poster you are judging:
S1 - Standardizing Investigational Hazardous Drug Safe Handling
S2 - Imposter Syndrome in the Clinical Nurse Specialist: Impact of Online Educational Intervention
S3 - A Standardized Toolkit for Patient Safety Attendants to Reduce Variability in Practice
S4 - Putting H.E.A.R.T. Into The Heart Failure Care Pathway
S5 - Improving Nursing Compliance with Mandatory Documentation in F10 PACU
S6 - Introducing Subcutaneous Diuretic Strategy in the Ambulatory Setting
S7 - Evaluation of Pain Management in a Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
S8 - PREPARE: Program Review and Evaluation for Professional Advancement in Nurse Residency Education
S9 - A CNS-Led Intervention to Improve Rates of Respiratory Mechanical Device-Related Pressure Injuries in Patients
S10 - Improving Patient Outcomes Through Enhanced Interprofessional Communication, Teamwork, and Collaboration During Rapid Response Events
S11 - Implementation of a Standardized Apnea Protocol in Premature Infants
S12 - Improving Staff Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Through Prolonged Fetal Heart Rate Deceleration Simulation
S13 - Getting our HAPIs to Zero: Journey of one Trauma-Surgical ICU
S14 - Implementation of a Non-pharmacologic Sleep Bundle to Reduce Delirium
S15 - Improving Stroke Care with Depression Screening
S16 - Use of visual management to improve pain reassessment by medical/surgical nurses: A quality improvement project
S17 - Combating Burnout in Pediatric Emergency Nurses through a Validated Survey and EBP
S18 - Achieving Success in Unit Transitions with the Support of a Clinical Nurse Specialist
S19 - Multimodal Prevention of Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): Current Recommendations and Implications for Practice
S20 - CNS Intern + EBP + Lean Six Sigma = Nurse Driven Telemetry Discontinuation Protocol
S21 - Optimizing multidisciplinary rounds: Improving outcomes through collaboration
S23 - Move Your Metrics: Lead With Mentorship to Improve Patient Outcomes
S24 - Patient/ Family Engagement to Increase Central Venous Catheter Maintenance Bundle Compliance: Pilot Quality Improvement Project
S25 - A Clinical Nurse Specialist Led Initiative to Improve the Inpatient STEMI Activation Process.
S26 - Evaluation of Developmental Care in a Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
S27 - Empowering nurses through education for appropriate use of a nurse-driven central line removal protocol
S28 - Evaluating Nurse and Patient Perceptions of Inpatient Continuous Glucose Monitoring Protocol Implementation at Stanford Hospital.
S29 - The Evolution of "Power-Week" During New Critical Care Nurse's Orientation
S30 - Oral Care for Pneumonia Prevention in Ventilated Patients: a CNS Student Translating Evidence into Practice
S31 - Ring-fencing in Elective Surgery: An Evidence-Based DNP Project
S32 - CNS Impact as a Sepsis Coordinator
S33 - Strengthening the Impact of the DNP Project
S34 - Diabetes Self-Management Using Health Coaching in a Care Management Program
S35 - Extending the Reach of the CNS To Meet the Needs of the Underserved
S36 - Addressing Health Literacy within a Large Urban Medical Academic Center
S37 - Incremental Implementation of the ICU Liberation Bundle: A Delirium Assessment Initiative
S38 - Addressing Delirium Using NuDESC and a Nurse Driven Practice Bundle
S39 - Improving Nurses’ Knowledge and Practice of Ostomy Care to Prevent Complications and Reduce Readmissions
3.
Title: Should be
clear, concise, reflect the content and draw interest of attendees
1 = Very Poor
(Title does not reflect the theme/topic)
2 = Needs Improvement
(Difficult to discern the project theme/topic)
3 = Acceptable/Average
(Title is lengthy, missing key words to describe theme/topic)
4 = Very Good
(Title accurately reflects the theme/topic)
4.
Visual Appeal:
Adequate whitespace, easy to follow format, font is easy to read
(large enough, appropriate font choice),
visuals have significance and are appropriate to the content.
Poster is self-explanatory.
1 = Very Poor
(3 or all elements are missing)
2 = Needs Improvement
(2 elements are missing)
3 = Acceptable/Average
(1 element is missing)
4 = Very Good
(all elements are present)
5.
Background and significance to advance nursing practice: Problem is clearly identified. Significance to the CNS role and clinical practice is clear.
1 = Very Poor
(all elements are missing)
2 = Needs Improvement
(2 elements are missing)
3 = Acceptable/Average
(1 element is missing)
4 = Very Good
(all elements are present)
6.
Purpose/Objective:
Adequately describes the purpose/intent of the project.
0 = No
(gets 0 points)
1 = Yes
(gets 1 point)
7.
Evaluation/Outcome:
outcomes are clearly demonstrated with metrics that include post-data collection, project limitations.
If applicable
, cost savings metrics are included if applicable.
1 = Very Poor
(all elements are missing)
2 = Needs Improvement
(missing 2 elements)
3 = Acceptable/Average
(missing 1 element)
4 = Very Good
(cost savings/return on investment)
8.
Discussion/Implications:
lessons learned from the project are adequately defined, implications to advance nursing practice, clinical practice,
and/or
future research are addressed.
1 = Very Poor
(missing all elements)
2 = Needs Improvement/Poor
(missing 2 elements)
3 = Acceptable/Average
(missing 1 element)
4 = Very Good
(all elements are present)
9.
Level of Impact
1 Unit
Multiple Units
Hospital
Multiple Hospitals
10.
Overall Comments
