CE Home > Writer's Guidelines

Division of Continuing Education Guidelines for Authors

Click here for printable PDF version
Updated October 29, 2009

Each issue of our magazines includes a peer-reviewed continuing education module that allows nurses to earn one contact hour. We are looking for modules that are timely, relevant, and compelling for practicing nurses. Prospective authors should be able to demonstrate their expertise in the subject matter through experience, education, or both. To understand the tone, style, and format of our CE modules, visit our Web site, www.nurse.com (click on Education/CE and then Self-Study Modules), and review a few of them.

The manuscript

To be considered for continuing nursing education, a manuscript must be authored or coauthored by an RN and must include the following items:

• • A one-sentence goal statement for the module, separate from the narrative.
  For example: The goal of this program is to provide nurses with information about the incidence, etiology, identification, and treatment of abdominal trauma.


• • Three objectives, using action verbs that require readers to demonstrate their understanding of the topic.
  For example:
  Identify three factors that …
  Discuss four nursing interventions ...
  Describe two ways patients …
• • A clinical vignette
• • Evidence-based information whenever possible.
  If the information is from an online source, include the link in the text. Identify the level of evidence-based practice (EBP) as A,B, and/or C. Highlight the EBP in yellow in the text and type the appropriate letter near the text so we can easily spot it. An icon, indicating the level of EBP, will be featured with your module on our Web site. When users click on the icon, the definitions will appear.
• • An introduction (lead) that packs a punch and captures the reader’s attention. If you use a case study as a lead, make it succinct and directly related to topic. Other considerations involving a case study lead:
  
  Whenever possible, use a case study involving an actual patient, but do not use the patient’s real name. Use fictitious names to identify patients.
  
  Inform the CE editor if your case study draws on a number of patient situations, i.e., if you use a “composite patient” to make your point.
• • An original, researched, referenced manuscript of about 3,600 words, written in conversational style. (The word count is for the main text and clinical vignette only. Do not include the objectives, references, or exam in the word count.) If you include a sidebar (of around 150 words), the main text should be shorter, about 3,200 words. The clinical vignette should be from 400 to 450 words.
  Manuscripts must be word-processed and double-spaced with margins of at least 1 inch. The text must provide current, advanced, testable information on clinical or professional topics relevant for practicing RNs.
• • If your CE module includes information about an off-label use of a product (the use of a product for a purpose other than that for which the FDA approved it), you must include a statement in writing informing us.
• • A complete reference list, including correct book or journal titles, dates, and page numbers, with footnoted citations in AMA style. Generally, references should not be older than three years. Do not use reference material that is available only online and only by subscription; most readers will not be able to access it without paying a fee. If you use an article that appears in a subscription journal that is available both online and in print, include both the URL and the print reference information, i.e., volume and issue numbers and page numbers. That way, readers without a subscription can access the article without cost at a library. Try to limit references because of space constraints. Number the footnotes consecutively in the text. Once a citation has a number, it keeps it throughout the narrative, and it should correspond to the numeric order of the reference list.
• • An exam: 12 multiple-choice questions with four responses each with the correct answers indicated. The exam cannot exceed 350 words. (See “Tips for Writing Test Questions” on page 7.)
• • A resume or curriculum vitae for each author.
• • A signed author’s agreement.
• • A signed vested interest self-disclosure form.
• Note: Authors must guard against plagiarism. The dictionary defines plagiarism this way: “To steal and pass off [the ideas or words of another] as one’s own: use [a created production] without crediting the source.”* To avoid plagiarizing, you must credit the journal articles, books, and Web sites you drew information from by citing them in a reference list. If you use someone else’s exact words, put quotation marks around them and list the source in your reference list.

The submission process

• • Before writing a word, contact Nan Callender-Price, RN, MA, director/editor of continuing education, to discuss your idea (800-859-2091, Ext. 124, or 925-283-7263 or ncallender-price@gannetthg.com). We are looking for manuscripts that are original, practical, useful, and informative for any RN, yet innovative and entertaining. We look for topics that cover the “holes” in the literature, important subjects that have been missed or undercovered — what nurses need to know before they know they need to know it. For a sense of what we publish, go to our Web site: www.nurse.com.
• • After your topic is approved, e-mail your module goal, objectives, outline, and curriculum vitae in attachments to Callender-Price. She will review your materials, let you know whether any changes are required before you begin to write, and discuss the deadline for submission of your manuscript. Once you complete your manuscript, please e-mail it to her in an attachment.
• • Paid peer reviewers (experts in your subject matter) will rigorously review your manuscript. In about three to five weeks, we will notify you about their decision. If reviews are favorable, you will be asked to revise the manuscript according to their suggestions.
• • When your manuscript is in its final version, you will receive an edited copy for your approval. The only changes you may make at that point are those related to accuracy or clarity of information. Most modules are published in all editions of Nursing Spectrum and NurseWeek and on our Web site.

Honoraria

Honoraria are awarded on an individual basis.
For more information
Contact Nan Callender-Price:
(800) 859-2091, Ext. 124
(925) 283-7263
(408) 249-7644 (fax)

* Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed.
Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc.; 1994.

Tips for Writing a Clinical Vignette

Create a clinical vignette of 400 to 450 words that reflects the information in your CE module and that will further test the reader’s knowledge. Include four multiple- choice questions with four distinct answer options, i.e., do not use “all of the above,” “none of the above,” or “a and c.” Give a rationale for the correct answer. Below is an example.

Clinical Vignette - Heart Failure

David Kensington arrives in the ED at 2:30 a.m. with shortness of breath. His vital signs are 154/92; 984-112-30. Lungs have bibasilar crackles up ½ posteriorly. Oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2) is 90%, and his heart reveals an S3. The monitor shows sinus tachycardia. An initial B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) assay is 1,650 pg/mL. He is treated with furosemide (Lasix) 40 mg IVP and O2 at 3 L/min via nasal cannula. He diureses 500 mL of urine. At 6 a.m., the patient is transferred to telemetry with a diagnosis of heart failure. His admission vital signs are 122/74; 98-102-24. Lungs have bibasilar crackles. The monitor shows sinus tachycardia. He receives an initial dose of enalapril (Vasotec) 2.5 mg PO. At 10 a.m., his blood pressure is 106/60. He diureses 600 mL of urine, and a repeat BNP assay is 1,100 pg/mL.

1. In the telemetry unit, the initial nursing assessment of Mr. Kensington should include —
a. Chest X-ray.
b. Oxygen saturation.
c. ECG.
d. Echocardiogram.

Answer: b. The admission oxygen saturation is only 90%. Oxygen is administered, and a repeat oxygen saturation should be done to determine the response to treatment.

2. The blood pressure on admission to the telemetry unit was lower because of —
a. Diuresis
b. Circulating BNP
c. Tachycardia
d. Oxygen administration

Answer: a. Diuresis decreases excess circulating volume and lowers BP.

3. The blood pressure decreased after administration of enalapril as the result of —
a. Excretion of excess sodium.
b. Excretion of excess volume.
c. Systemic vasodilatation.
d. Increased contractility.

Answer: c. Ace inhibitors produce vasodilatation, lowering BP and decreasing the workload on the failing ventricle.

4. BNP levels decrease in response —
a. Vasodilatation.
b. Increased contractility.
c. Increased blood pressure.
d. Decreased volume.

Types of Evidence

Evidence-based information ranges from from Level A (the strongest) to Level C (the weakest).

• Level A: randomized controlled trial/ meta-analysis
• Level B: other evidence
• Level C: consensus/expert opinion, clinical practice guidelines

Level A

Randomized controlled trial
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the classic “gold standard” study design. Subjects are randomly selected and randomly assigned to groups to undergo rigorously controlled experimental conditions or interventions.

Meta-analysis
A meta-analysis is a study design that uses statistical techniques to combine and analyze data from many studies, usually RCTs.

Level B

Systematic review
A systematic review involves surveying all relevant studies (e.g., quantitative studies, such as RCTs, and qualitative studies, such as observational field studies) to synthesize research results about a specific practice or topic. Strict criteria for review (e.g., highest-level evidence, specific populations, and time range) are used.

Nonquantitative systematic review
A nonquantitative systematic review is a comprehensive survey of all relevant studies that are not numerical (quantitative methods, such as RCTs).

Qualitative study/quantitative study
Qualitative studies explore descriptive, wordbased phenomena, such as symptoms, behaviors, culture, and group dynamics. Quantitative studies use statistical methods to establish numerical relationships that are correlational or cause-and-effect.

Nonrandomized clinical trial
A nonrandomized clinical trial might be considered “quasi-experimental”: The sample populations aren’t randomly selected, the interventions aren’t randomly assigned, or both.

Lower-quality RCT
A lower-quality RCT has less strength as evidence because it has less methodologic rigor, resulting in questions of validity. Frequent problems with this type of study include intentional or unintentional bias in sample enrollment; nonblinding, unclear criteria for participant selection; or unreliable or invalid tools.

Clinical cohort study
Clinical cohort studies examine groups of people who have common characteristics or exposure experiences to compare outcomes in those exposed vs. those not exposed (e.g., development of heart disease after exposure or nonexposure to 10 years of secondhand smoke).

Case-controlled study
Case-controlled studies use an observational approach in which subjects known to have a disease or outcome are compared with subjects known not to have that disease or outcome. Subjects are matched on characteristics so that they are as similar as possible except for the disease or outcome.

Uncontrolled study
An uncontrolled study uses design and methods that do not control participant selection or interventions (e.g., a convenience sample, such as patients on a given unit, may be studied because it is the only group reasonably available).

Epidemiological study
Epidemiological studies study people over a long time to determine risk or likelihood of developing diseases. These studies include retrospective database searches or prospective studies that follow a population over time.

Level C

Consensus viewpoint and expert opinion
Consensus viewpoint involves obtaining agreement about specific practices from all clinical experts on a review panel. Expert opinion involves obtaining agreement from a majority of clinical experts on a review panel.

Clinical practice guidelines
CPGs are recommendations for how care should be delivered to people with specific diseases, problems, or situations. Best developed by a panel of clinical and scientific experts, CPGs may be consensus or expert opinion. With sufficient strength of scientific evidence, guidelines are clear. With insufficient evidence, clinical expert opinion can address research gaps. CPGs are the foundation for evidence-based practice and are promising for improving the quality and efficiency of care and patient outcomes.

Meta-synthesis
A meta-synthesis is a systematic review that synthesizes findings from qualitative studies using an interpretive technique to bring small study findings — such as case studies — to clinical application.

Guidelines for Listing References

1. Use AMA style. (See the AMA Manual of Style, 10th edition.)
2. List footnoted citations under a “Reference” heading. Number citations consecutively in the text. Once a citation has a number, it keeps it throughout the narrative.
3. List general references not specifically cited in the text under a “Bibliography” heading.
4. Abbreviate journal names according to AMA style.

Examples

Up to six authors, list them all
Hron G, Kollars M, Binder BR, Eichinger S, Kyrle PA. Identification of patients at low risk for recurrent VTE by measuring thrombin generation. JAMA. 2006;296:397-402.

More than six authors, list first three, et al.
Carpenter C, Fischl MA, Hammer SM, et al. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in 1997: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society, USA panel. JAMA. 1997;277:1962-1969.

Books (entire book)
Sherlock S, Dooley, J. Diseases of the Liver and Biliary System. 9th ed. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc; 2001.

Books (chapter in edited book)
Schenk EA. Management of persons with neurological problems. In: Phipps WJ, Manahon Donovan F, Sands JK, Marek JF, Neighbors M, eds. Medical-Surgical Nursing: Health and Illness Perspectives. 7th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002:1787-1865.

CDs, DVDs, audiotapes, videotapes:
Wound Healing. [videotape]. Irvine, CA: Concept Media; 2006.

Online material
In citing data from a Web site, include the following elements, if available, in the order shown: Author(s), if given (often, no authors are given). Title of the specific item cited (if none is given, use the name of the organization responsible for the site). Name of the Web site. URL [provide URL and verify that the link still works as clase as possible to publication]. Published [date]. Updated [date]. Accessed [date].

Examples:

Online journals

Burt RK, Loh Y, Pearce W, et al. Clinical applications of blood-derived and marrowderived stem cells for nonmalignant diseases. JAMA. 2008;299(8):925-936.
http:// www.jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/299/8/925. Accessed July 31, 2009.

Websites

Interim guidance about avian influenza A (H5N1) for US citizens living abroad. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
http://www.cdc.gov/travel/other/avian_flu_ig_americans_abroad_032405.htm. Updated November 18, 2005. Accessed July 31, 2009.

Dissertation or master’s thesis

Caruso E. An Examination of Organizational Mentoring: The Case of Motorola [dissertation]. London, England: University of London; 1990.

Newspapers

Steinmetz G. Kafka is a symbol of Prague today; also, he’s a T-shirt. Wall Street Journal. October 10, 1996;A2, A6.

Poster

Clawson LL. Treatment and research perspectives in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Poster presented at: American Association of Neuroscience Nurses Annual Meeting, 1997, Houston, TX

Package insert

Cials [package insert]. Indianapolis, IN: Eli Lilly & Co; 2003.

Tips for Writing Test Questions

• • Keep the questions and answers very brief: a maximum of 350 words total.
• • Be sure the order of your questions matches the sequence information in the narrative. For example, exam question No.1 should correspond to the information that appears in the narrative first.
• • Remember that test questions should measure mastery of the objectives. After you have finished writing the test, go back to the objectives and be certain that the test includes questions that relate to each objective.
• • Make all questions multiple choice with four possible options labeled “a,” “b,” “c,” and “d.”
• Be certain that the three incorrect options are plausible.
• Use the same terminology in the test as in the narrative. (For example, if the narrative refers only to “hypertension,” use “hypertension,” not “high blood pressure,” in the test.)
• • Limit yourself to one question that involves statistics, number of cases, or the like. Examples: “What percentage of ventilated patients develop ventilator-associated pneumonia?” “How many cases of HIV/AIDS were recorded in the U.S. in 2008?” “What is the prevalence of migraine among U.S. women?”
• • Make sure the correct option is derived directly from the narrative and clearly defensible as the best answer.
• • Avoid using words in the correct option that are also found in the stem (the first part of the question). Doing so provides “clues” to the correct answer.
• Do not write “multiple-multiple” questions, that is, those that present a list of options, then ask the test taker to choose “I and II only,” “I, II, and III,” “All the above,” etc.
• Make sure that your options are not mutually exclusive. For example, if option “a” reads, “Slows the heart rate,” and option “b” reads, “Increases the heart rate,” these two options are mutually exclusive. The test taker can be reasonably certain that “c” and “d” are extraneous, and that either “a” or “b” is the correct answer.
• Be sure that one or more of your options are not included in another option. For example, if option “a” reads, “Affects the heart rate,” and option “b” reads, “Slows the heart rate,” option “b” is actually included in option “a.” Thus, if “b” is a correct response, “a” is also.
• • Avoid writing the options “None of the above” and “All of the above.” Also, do not phrase questions in the negative, for example, using a phrase such as “all of the following EXCEPT.”
• • Include an answer key.

Bibliography

Alfaro-LeFevre R. Critical Thinking and Clinical Judgment: A Practical Approach to Outcome-Focused Thinking. 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier-Saunders; 2008.

Evidence-based toolkit. American Academy of Family Physicians Web site. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/journals/afp/ebmtoolkit.html. Accessed July 31, 2009.

Is all evidence created equal? University of Illinois Web site. http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/lhsp/resources/levels.shtml. Accessed July 31, 2009.

Levels of evidence (March 2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed July 31, 2009.

Newhouse RP, Dearholt SL, Poe SS, Pugh LC, White KM. Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence Based Practice Model and Guidelines. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2007.

SORT: The strength-of-recommendation taxonomy. American Academy of Family Physicians Web site. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/journals/afp/afpsort.html. Accessed July 31, 2009.

Understanding research study designs. University of Minnesota Biomedical Library Web site. http://www.biomed.lib.umn.edu/inst/research/pdf. Accessed July 31, 2009.