NURS-FPX4030: Evidence-Based Nursing Care Plan

Assessment Context

NURS-FPX4030 Evidence-Based Nursing Care Plan is a 4–6 page written assessment completed in Week 6 of the Fall 2026 study period at Capella University. The assessment carries 25% of the final course grade and requires students to construct a patient-specific care plan that applies the nursing process, integrates NANDA-I 2024–2026 diagnoses, sets SMART goals, and defends every intervention with peer-reviewed evidence. The brief aligns with the Capella School of Nursing and Health Sciences assessment architecture and the FlexPath competency model. Learners who submit work in NURS-FPX4030 demonstrate readiness for clinical judgment in acute and community settings. The assessment replaces the earlier discussion-based case review and shifts weight toward written evidence synthesis and measurable care planning.

Faculty designed this brief to mirror the care planning documentation students will produce during preceptorship and transition-to-practice residencies. The rubric rewards diagnostic precision, rationale quality, and evaluation logic rather than volume. Students who attempt to write generically about a disease rather than a specific patient will lose marks in the Assessment and Diagnosis columns. The case scenario supplied in the course room remains the sole permissible patient data set. External patient scenarios require written instructor approval before Week 4. The submission window opens on Monday of Week 5 and closes at 11:59 p.m. Central Time on Sunday of Week 6. Late submissions receive a 10% deduction per day up to three days; work submitted after Day 3 is not graded and earns zero unless an approved extension sits on file.

Task Description

Select the assigned patient from the course room case bank. Build a complete nursing care plan that moves from assessment data through diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The plan must contain three priority nursing diagnoses stated in NANDA-I format with related-to and as-evidenced-by components. Each diagnosis requires one short-term goal and one long-term goal written to SMART standards. Each goal requires at least three nursing interventions drawn from peer-reviewed literature or a recognized clinical practice guideline. Every intervention needs a rationale that explains the physiological or psychosocial mechanism behind the action. The evaluation section must state whether each goal was met, partially met, or unmet, and must identify the evidence used to reach that judgment. The paper closes with a reflection on how the care plan would change if the patient’s acuity increased by one level. APA 7th edition formatting governs title page, headings, in-text citations, and references. At least five peer-reviewed sources published between 2019 and 2026 must appear in the reference list; two of those sources must come from nursing-specific journals indexed in CINAHL or PubMed.

Assessment Requirements

• Length: 4–6 pages, excluding title page and references.
• Format: APA 7th edition, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman or 11-point Calibri.
• Diagnoses: Three NANDA-I 2024–2026 approved diagnoses, ordered by clinical priority.
• Goals: One short-term and one long-term goal per diagnosis, each written to SMART criteria.
• Interventions: Minimum of three per diagnosis, each tied to a peer-reviewed source or clinical guideline.
• Rationales: One evidence-backed rationale per intervention.
• Evaluation: Status of each goal (met, partially met, unmet) with supporting evidence.
• References: Minimum of five peer-reviewed sources, 2019–2026, APA 7th edition.
• Submission: Turnitin similarity score below 20%; no more than 5% from any single source.

Grading Rubric

Criterion	Exemplary (4)	Proficient (3)	Developing (2)	Beginning (1)	Weight
Assessment Data	Comprehensive subjective and objective data; all relevant history, medications, and diagnostics included.	Most relevant data present; minor omissions do not affect diagnosis.	Data present but incomplete; omissions weaken diagnostic precision.	Data missing or irrelevant; diagnoses unsupported.	20%
Nursing Diagnoses	Three NANDA-I diagnoses stated correctly, prioritized, and supported by assessment data.	Diagnoses correct and prioritized; one minor formatting error.	Diagnoses present but not prioritized or missing one component of NANDA-I format.	Diagnoses not NANDA-I approved or unsupported by data.	20%
SMART Goals	All goals specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound; patient-centered language throughout.	Goals meet most SMART criteria; one element missing across goals.	Goals vague or missing two SMART elements.	Goals absent or not measurable.	20%
Interventions and Rationales	Three or more evidence-based interventions per diagnosis; rationales explain mechanism and cite peer-reviewed sources.	Interventions appropriate; rationales present but one citation weak or missing.	Interventions generic; rationales surface-level or poorly cited.	Interventions absent, unsafe, or without rationale.	25%
Evaluation and APA	Evaluation status for every goal with evidence; flawless APA 7th edition formatting and citation.	Evaluation present; minor APA errors that do not impede reading.	Evaluation incomplete; multiple APA errors.	No evaluation or pervasive APA errors.	15%

Sample Answer Excerpt

Mr. J., a 74-year-old male with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, arrived on the medical-surgical unit with worsening dyspnea, bilateral crackles, and 3+ pitting edema. His BNP was 1,840 pg/mL, and his oxygen saturation was 88% on room air. The priority nursing diagnosis was Decreased Cardiac Output related to altered myocardial contractility as evidenced by tachycardia, fatigue, and elevated BNP. A short-term goal targeted a reduction in heart rate to below 100 beats per minute within eight hours; a long-term goal targeted a weight loss of 2 kg over five days through diuresis. Interventions included daily weight monitoring before breakfast, strict intake and output measurement, and administration of loop diuretics per the ordered protocol. Each intervention carried a rationale grounded in hemodynamic principles and clinical guidelines. The evaluation recorded a heart rate of 92 beats per minute at eight hours and a 1.8 kg weight loss by Day 4, marking the short-term goal as met and the long-term goal as partially met. These findings align with evidence that structured care planning improves goal attainment in heart failure populations (Exploring Plan of Care Communication With a Multidisciplinary Rounding Plan to Nursing Care Plans).

Documentation quality separated a passing care plan from a strong one in this assessment. Students who copied textbook rationales without linking them to the specific patient lost marks because the rubric asks for mechanism-level reasoning, not generic statements. The evaluation section demanded a clear judgment for each goal with a cited basis for that judgment. A care plan that stated “goal met” without evidence failed the Evaluation criterion. Time management also mattered; students who began data extraction in Week 4 produced cleaner diagnostic reasoning than those who started writing in Week 5. The strongest submissions treated the care plan as a clinical document rather than an academic essay. They used concise headings, short paragraphs, and tables where appropriate, and they reserved narrative prose for the rationale and evaluation sections. The case scenario supplied enough data for three diagnoses; students who invented laboratory values or vital signs outside the scenario violated academic integrity rules and received a zero on the assessment.

Diagnostic Precision and Clinical Reasoning

A second consideration involves the choice of nursing diagnoses. Decreased Cardiac Output competes with Excess Fluid Volume in many heart failure cases; the difference lies in whether the assessment data point primarily to pump failure or to volume overload. The case data above supported Decreased Cardiac Output because tachycardia and elevated BNP signaled compensatory mechanisms for reduced stroke volume. A systematic review of NANDA-I, NIC, and NOC implementations confirms that diagnostic accuracy improves when students match defining characteristics to the assessment data rather than selecting a diagnosis from memory (Hymnekleiv et al., 2025). Students who selected Excess Fluid Volume without linking it to the edema and weight gain produced defensible plans, but they missed the priority diagnosis. The rubric does not penalize a defensible alternative diagnosis if the rationale is coherent and evidence-backed. It penalizes unsupported diagnoses and missing prioritization logic.

• Defining characteristics must come directly from the case scenario, not from a textbook exemplar.
• Prioritization follows ABC and Maslow logic; circulation and oxygenation precede psychosocial concerns unless the data demand otherwise.
• Rationales should name the mechanism (for example, “loop diuretics reduce preload by inhibiting sodium reabsorption in the loop of Henle”) rather than state the intervention’s purpose.

Evidence Selection and Citation Quality

Students often ask whether clinical practice guidelines count as peer-reviewed sources for this assessment. The answer depends on the guideline’s publication process. Guidelines from the American Heart Association or the Heart Failure Society of America carry enough methodological rigor to satisfy the evidence requirement when paired with at least two peer-reviewed journal articles. A care plan built entirely on UpToDate summaries or nursing textbooks will lose marks because the rubric asks for peer-reviewed literature. Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt’s evidence-based practice text remains the standard for appraising source quality, and students who apply its levels of evidence to their chosen interventions produce stronger rationales (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023). The reference list should show variety: at least one systematic review, one clinical guideline, and one primary study. A list of five narrative reviews signals shallow evidence searching.

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses sit at the top of the evidence hierarchy for intervention rationales.
• Randomized controlled trials support intervention efficacy claims when systematic reviews are unavailable.
• Clinical guidelines from specialty societies provide the bridge between evidence and bedside action.
• Textbook citations are acceptable for pathophysiology context but not for intervention rationale claims.

Evaluation Logic and Goal Attainment

Evaluation is the section students rush, and the rubric catches it. A goal marked “met” without a corresponding data point in the evaluation column is an assertion, not an evaluation. The strongest submissions restated the goal, reported the outcome data, and named the judgment. For the heart failure case above, the short-term goal targeted a heart rate below 100 beats per minute within eight hours. The evaluation reported 92 beats per minute at the eight-hour mark and cited the telemetry strip as the data source. The long-term goal targeted 2 kg of weight loss over five days. The evaluation reported 1.8 kg by Day 4, judged the goal partially met, and explained that diuresis continued beyond the assessment window. That level of specificity satisfies the rubric’s Exemplary column. Vague evaluations that state “patient improved” or “goals were achieved” fall into the Developing column regardless of how strong the rest of the plan is.

Conclusion

This assessment rewards clinical thinking over writing volume. Students who treat the care plan as a clinical document, with prioritized diagnoses, measurable goals, mechanism-level rationales, and evidence-backed evaluations, produce work that meets the Exemplary standard. The rubric is transparent and the case data is sufficient; the variable is how carefully each section is built. Start the diagnostic reasoning early, choose evidence that matches the intervention, and write the evaluation with the same precision as the assessment section. A care plan that cannot show its work is not a care plan.

References

Hymnekleiv, L., et al. (2025). The impact of NANDA-I, Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), and Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) on the improvement of nursing practice worldwide: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.70024

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Moore, C., et al. (2023). Exploring plan of care communication with a multidisciplinary rounding plan to nursing care plans. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 55(2), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/jnn.0000000000000690

Pendoni, R., et al. (2025). Developing a subset of NANDA-I diagnoses in intensive care unit: A Delphi study. Recenti Progressi in Medicina, 116(4), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1701/4480.44817

Přehled, P. (2023). Patient-centered health care planning in acute inpatient mental health settings: A best practice implementation project. JBI Evidence Implementation. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000381

===============================================

NURS-FPX4030: Evidence-Based Nursing Care Planning, Assessment Requirements and Clinical Reasoning

Source and Course Accuracy

Capella University’s July 2026 University Catalog identifies NURS-FPX4030 as Making Evidence-Based Decisions, a three-credit BSN FlexPath course. The course description emphasizes research interpretation, evidence-based practice models, clinical reasoning, and decisions that improve patient, organisational, and population outcomes. Accordingly, Evidence-Based Nursing Care Plan can serve as the title of the assignment guide, but it should not replace the official course title.

The supplied assessment brief specifies a 4–6-page APA 7 paper, three prioritised NANDA-I diagnoses, SMART goals, evidence-supported interventions, individual rationales, and measurable evaluation criteria. It also includes a heart-failure patient, Mr. J., as a sample illustration. The actual course-bank patient information is not included, so the material below develops the academic assignment guide rather than presenting an invented patient-specific submission.

Two corrections matter when using the supplied sample. First, the 2024–2026 NANDA-I classification lists Risk for decreased cardiac output, rather than the older Decreased Cardiac Output diagnosis appearing in the example. Second, the 2023 nursing care-plan communication study is authored by Perera et al., not Moore et al. The verified references below use the correct publication details.

Evidence-Based Nursing Care Planning in NURS-FPX4030

Introduction

Evidence-based nursing care planning provides a structured method for translating patient assessment findings into appropriate nursing decisions. The process requires nurses to identify actual or potential health problems, establish measurable outcomes, select interventions supported by research, and evaluate the patient’s response to care. NURS-FPX4030 places particular emphasis on the relationship between clinical evidence and nursing judgment. Students must demonstrate that their proposed interventions respond to an individual patient’s needs rather than rely on general descriptions of a medical condition.

The supplied assessment brief requires three priority nursing diagnoses using NANDA-I terminology, with one short-term and one long-term SMART goal for each diagnosis. Each goal must have at least three associated nursing interventions, supported by peer-reviewed literature or recognised clinical practice guidelines. Students must explain the rationale behind every intervention and evaluate whether the patient met the intended outcomes. The final reflection considers how an increase in patient acuity would affect the original plan. These requirements make the assessment an exercise in clinical reasoning, where the strength of the argument depends on the relationship between assessment findings, interventions, and measurable outcomes.

Patient Assessment and Evidence Collection

Accurate assessment provides the foundation for a defensible nursing care plan. Students should begin with the assigned patient’s clinical history, presenting complaints, physical examination findings, medication records, and available diagnostic results. Subjective findings include information reported by the patient, such as pain, fatigue, breathing difficulties, and changes in daily activities. Objective findings include vital signs, oxygen saturation, laboratory results, physical examination observations, and other measurable clinical indicators. Both categories matter because isolated findings may not adequately explain the patient’s condition.

The assessment should distinguish between information documented in the case and assumptions drawn from general medical knowledge. For example, a diagnosis of heart failure does not automatically establish the presence of decreased cardiac output, impaired gas exchange, or excessive fluid volume. Nurses must identify the clinical indicators that support each proposed diagnosis. NANDA International’s 2024–2026 classification places considerable emphasis on the relationship between assessment, diagnostic reasoning, and the selection of appropriate nursing diagnoses (Herdman et al., 2024). Consequently, the assessment section should explain why particular findings matter to the patient’s current health status.

The sample involving Mr. J. illustrates the importance of identifying connected clinical findings. His worsening dyspnoea, bilateral crackles, 3+ pitting oedema, oxygen saturation of 88% on room air, and BNP of 1,840 pg/mL indicate significant clinical concerns associated with heart failure. These findings support closer attention to oxygenation and fluid balance. His history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction adds useful clinical context, although the nursing diagnoses must still reflect his individual assessment findings. Paneque-Sánchez-Toscano et al. (2025) identified excessive fluid volume and activity intolerance among frequently reported nursing diagnoses in heart failure populations. Their systematic review also demonstrates why diagnosis selection requires attention to the patient’s specific presentation rather than automatic reliance on a disease label.

Selecting and Prioritising NANDA-I Nursing Diagnoses

Nursing diagnoses describe patient responses to health conditions and provide the basis for independent nursing interventions. Their selection requires a clear relationship between the diagnostic label, relevant assessment findings, and the underlying factors contributing to the patient’s condition. The assessment brief requires three diagnoses in priority order, using NANDA-I terminology. Problem-focused diagnoses should include the appropriate related factors and defining characteristics. Risk diagnoses require supporting risk factors rather than evidence of an existing problem, so students should check the instructor’s formatting expectations when applying the required diagnostic structure.

Clinical priority should reflect the seriousness of the patient’s condition. The ABC approach gives particular attention to airway, breathing, and circulation, although other findings may alter the order when the clinical circumstances demand it. For instance, a patient experiencing significant hypoxaemia requires prompt assessment of respiratory function before nurses concentrate on less urgent educational or psychosocial needs. Fluid retention may also require early attention when oedema and pulmonary congestion interfere with respiratory and cardiovascular function.

The Mr. J. example requires an important terminology correction. The NANDA-I 2024–2026 classification includes Excessive fluid volume, Decreased activity tolerance, and Risk for decreased cardiac output. It does not list Decreased Cardiac Output as a current diagnosis in its classification contents. Paneque-Sánchez-Toscano et al. (2025) also discuss decreased cardiac output as a clinical sign associated with heart failure rather than treating it as an appropriate current nursing diagnosis. Students should therefore avoid copying the older diagnostic label from the sample without checking the current classification.

Developing SMART Goals and Evidence-Based Interventions

Each nursing diagnosis requires two goals that describe the intended patient outcomes. A short-term goal addresses an immediate clinical need, whereas a long-term goal focuses on progress over a longer period or before discharge. SMART goals should specify the expected result, a measurable indicator, and a realistic timeframe. They should also reflect the patient’s condition and the available evidence. Goals such as improving respiratory function or reducing fluid retention become more useful when they identify the exact clinical measurement that will demonstrate improvement.

The supplied Mr. J. example sets a short-term goal of reducing his heart rate to below 100 beats per minute within eight hours. It also proposes a long-term goal of reducing body weight by 2 kg over five days through diuresis. Both examples identify measurable outcomes and deadlines. However, students should include baseline measurements whenever the case provides them, because baseline information allows a more meaningful comparison during evaluation. Goals should not promise an outcome that the patient’s condition or treatment plan cannot reasonably support.

Interventions must address the specific problems identified during assessment. For a patient experiencing fluid overload, nursing actions may include monitoring daily weight, measuring fluid intake and output, assessing oedema, and administering prescribed diuretics. Each action requires a separate rationale. Daily weight monitoring helps identify changes in fluid balance, while accurate intake and output records provide additional information about the patient’s response to treatment. Administration of loop diuretics, according to the prescription, supports the removal of excess sodium and fluid through increased renal excretion.

The 2022 American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and Heart Failure Society of America guideline recommends diuretics for patients with heart failure who show evidence of fluid retention. The guideline explains that loop diuretics inhibit sodium and chloride reabsorption in the loop of Henle, increasing urinary sodium and water excretion and reducing congestion (Heidenreich et al., 2022). Fraser et al. (2024) provide additional nursing-specific guidance on caring for hospitalised patients with heart failure, including clinical monitoring and coordination of patient care. Students should use such evidence to explain the physiological basis of each intervention rather than merely repeat the action in different words.

Evidence Quality and Nursing Care Documentation

The assessment requires at least five peer-reviewed sources published between 2019 and 2026, including at least two nursing-specific journal articles indexed in CINAHL or PubMed. Source selection should reflect the strength and relevance of the evidence. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can help establish patterns across several studies, while randomised controlled trials provide information about intervention effectiveness. Clinical practice guidelines translate research findings into recommendations for patient care. Students should examine the publication date, research design, population, findings, and study limitations before using a source to justify a clinical intervention.

Standardised nursing classifications also help connect diagnoses, interventions, and patient outcomes. Fernane et al. (2026) reviewed the use of NANDA-I, Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), and Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) across nursing practice. Their findings indicate that these classification systems can support clinical reasoning, individualised care planning, documentation quality, and communication between healthcare professionals. However, the review also identifies limitations in implementation and the availability of long-term outcome evidence. Students should therefore use standardised terminology to support clinical judgment rather than treat classification labels as substitutes for individual assessment.

Documentation must communicate what nurses intended to achieve and what actually happened during patient care. Perera et al. (2023) examined whether multidisciplinary rounding plans provided more clinically useful information than conventional nursing care plans in a neuroscience intensive care setting. Their pilot study found that nurses answered clinical scenario questions more accurately when they used the multidisciplinary rounding plan. The findings suggest that care plans should remain connected to current clinical information and interprofessional communication. A written plan becomes less useful when it fails to reflect changes in the patient’s actual condition.

Evaluation and Goal Attainment

Evaluation determines whether the selected interventions achieved their intended outcomes. Students must classify every short-term and long-term goal as met, partially met, or unmet, then support the decision with documented patient findings. Each evaluation should restate the target, identify the observed outcome, and explain the judgment. General statements such as improved condition or satisfactory progress do not provide sufficient evidence. Clinical measurements and observations offer a stronger basis for evaluating care.

The sample provides a useful illustration. Mr. J.’s heart rate reaches 92 beats per minute after eight hours, meeting the proposed short-term target of below 100 beats per minute. His weight decreases by 1.8 kg during the fourth day of treatment against a five-day target of 2 kg. The sample classifies the long-term goal as partially met. However, the timing requires care: an assessment on Day 4 does not establish whether a five-day target was met or missed unless the care period ended earlier. The final evaluation should use the agreed assessment deadline or explain why clinical circumstances required an earlier judgment. Such attention to timing improves the accuracy of clinical evaluation.

Responding to Increased Patient Acuity

A change in patient acuity requires nurses to reassess priorities and determine whether the original care plan remains appropriate. In a heart failure patient, worsening dyspnoea, declining oxygen saturation, increasing respiratory effort, new confusion, or signs of poor perfusion may indicate clinical deterioration. Nurses should respond according to the facility’s escalation procedures, obtain the necessary clinical assessment, communicate significant changes to the responsible healthcare team, and follow appropriate monitoring and treatment orders. The original goals may also require revision because the patient now has different immediate care needs.

Increased acuity can change both the frequency and nature of nursing interventions. Respiratory and cardiovascular observations may require closer monitoring, while medication response, fluid balance, and renal function may need greater attention. The nurse must communicate the patient’s response to treatment and identify findings that require further clinical review. Heidenreich et al. (2022) emphasise the importance of treating congestion and monitoring the response to heart failure therapy. A revised care plan should therefore reflect the patient’s current condition rather than preserve goals that no longer match the level of clinical risk.

Conclusion

Evidence-based nursing care planning requires a direct relationship between patient assessment, diagnostic accuracy, clinical interventions, and measurable outcomes. NURS-FPX4030 expects students to demonstrate that relationship through three prioritised nursing diagnoses, SMART goals, evidence-supported interventions, and clear evaluation decisions. The strongest submissions use current NANDA-I terminology, select relevant clinical research, and explain the rationale behind every nursing action. Accurate patient data must guide each decision, and the evaluation must show whether the interventions achieved the intended results. Clinical deterioration also requires nurses to reconsider the original priorities and adjust care according to the patient’s changing condition.

References

Fernane, F. E., Boutib, A., Refki, I., Chergaoui, S., Azizi, A., Marfak, A., & Youlyouz-Marfak, I. (2026). The impact of NANDA-I, Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC), and Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) on the improvement of nursing practice worldwide: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 37(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/20473087261450945

Fraser, M., Barnes, S. G., Barsness, C., Beavers, C., Bither, C. J., Boettger, S., Hallman, C., Keleman, A., Leckliter, L., McIlvennan, C. K., Ozemek, C., Patel, A., Pierson, N. W., Shakowski, C., Thomas, S. C., Whitmire, T., & Anderson, K. M. (2024). Nursing care of the patient hospitalized with heart failure: A scientific statement from the American Association of Heart Failure Nurses. Heart & Lung, 64, e1–e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.01.007

Heidenreich, P. A., Bozkurt, B., Aguilar, D., Allen, L. A., Byun, J. J., Colvin, M. M., Deswal, A., Drazner, M. H., Dunlay, S. M., Evers, L. R., Fang, J. C., Fedson, S. E., Fonarow, G. C., Hayek, S. S., Hernandez, A. F., Khazanie, P., Kittleson, M. M., Lee, C. S., Link, M. S., … Yancy, C. W. (2022). 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation, 145(18), e895–e1032. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063

Herdman, T. H., Kamitsuru, S., & Lopes, C. T. (Eds.). (2024). NANDA International nursing diagnoses: Definitions and classification, 2024–2026 (13th ed.). Thieme Medical Publishers. https://shop.thieme.com/NANDA-I-International-Nursing-Diagnoses/9781684206018

Paneque-Sánchez-Toscano, I., Porcel-Gálvez, A.-M., Allande-Cussó, R., & Carrión-Camacho, M.-R. (2025). Prevalence of NANDA-I nursing diagnoses in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 36(1), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/2047-3095.12467

Perera, A. C., Joseph, S., Marshall, J. L., & Olson, D. M. (2023). Exploring plan of care communication with a multidisciplinary rounding plan to nursing care plans. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 55(2), 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000690

The post Evidence-Based Care Plan Construction appeared first on EssayBishops.