Heart Failure Management

/in /by

I have attached a power point presentation that the professor critiqued:

Student, while much of the information is present, a key component of the presentation would be to present the intervention and the evidence-based guideline to be implemented, along with the evidence on which the intervention is based before the implementation plan. Your intervention needs to be clearer and supported by critically appraised evidence. The relationship between the intervention and outcomes is also needed. How will knowledge, self-efficacy and self-behavior be measured? What physiological and biometric data will be evaluated? Please refer to the Announcement where presentation guidelines are presented.

I have changed the slides to be in the order that she advised.

Here are more comments that the professor provided with the given grade for ppt 28/40 = 70:

A presentation of the key elements of the project proposal was submitted to the DQ on a timely manner. The key elements of your presentation as you would be presenting to your stakeholders was to be the focus. See comments in discussion thread detailing expected revisions (above). Presentation will be resubmitted in Week 10, incorporating the comments of your colleagues and instructor. Substantive participation postings required.

APA: Similar APA challenges noted on prior returned papers. Author last name before initials. Initials need periods. Ampersand needed. Year after authors. Journal title and volume are in italics. Current sources needed. More than 4 APA errors noted.

Could you really go over the APA fromat on the references on the ppt and the EBP paper I will be including also. I have submitted that to but have not received a grade for it. The paper is worth 250 points

I have also included the EBP paper revised. But it was revised after I had turned the other one in. Could you go through this one with a fine tooth comb for grammer, APA format and APA reference format? Just as I am sitting here writing this she posted my grade for the paper 81.2%, but if I can turn it again for a chance of a higher grade I would like to be able to that. Here comment for the paper: Multiple occurrences of misidentification of sources. This has been noted in prior assignments.