Literature Review
ALL DATA MUST BE PEER REVIEWED AND EVIDENCE BASE ARTICLES /JOURNAL CONSISTING OF QUALITATIVE, AND QUANTITATIVE DATA. (NO GOOGLE REFERENCE) references not over 5year
Literature Evaluation Table
In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. Being able to articulate the information and successfully summarize relevant peer-reviewed articles in a scholarly fashion helps to support the student’s ability and confidence to further develop and synthesize the progressively more complex assignments that constitute the components of the course change proposal capstone project.
For this assignment, the student will provide a synopsis of eight peer-reviewed articles from nursing journals using an evaluation table that determines the level and strength of evidence for each of the eight articles. The articles should be current within the last 5 years and closely relate to the PICOT statement developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” resource to complete this assignment.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are not required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.
The PICOT statement developed earlier in this course.
Decrease of Hospital Falls among Post-Surgical Adult Orthopedic Patients
(P) – Population: Adults 18 to 60 years of age, who are post-surgical orthopedic patients in an acute care setting and have not received hourly rounding immediately after their operation or after transfer from Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Patients who have not undergone orthopedic surgery will be excluded from this study.
(I) – Intervention: Subjects randomized to receive intentional/hourly rounding once every hour over a period of 2 weeks. These subjects would also receive the same postoperative care given to the control group to eliminate postoperative care as a second variable affecting outcomes.
(C) – Comparison: A standardized nursing task rounding where nurses carry out task-oriented rounding such as activities of daily living, medication administration, and so on would be used as an active control group. All subjects, regardless of group assignment, would receive a scheduled postoperative care over a period of 2 weeks. Using this strategy, we will be able to minimize the non-specific effects of receiving postoperative care.
(O) – Outcome: Decreases in hospital falls, measured using incidence rate ratios (ratio of fall rate post-intervention group to the fall rate of control group).
(T) – Time: The outcome would be measured hourly for 2 weeks.
Additional Material1. Literature Evaluation Table
Review the “Literature Evaluation Table” resourced to assist you in completing the Literature Evaluation Table assignment.
NRS-490-RS-LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx
Literature Evaluation Table
1
Unsatisfactory 0-71%
0.00% 2
Less Than Satisfactory 72-75%
75.00% 3
Satisfactory 76-79%
79.00% 4
Good 80-89%
89.00% 5
Excellent 90-100%
100.00%
100.0 %Article Selection
5.0 %Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is not included. Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is present. Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is clearly provided and well developed. Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Article Title and Year Published Article title and year published section is not included. Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Article title and year published section is present. Article title and year published section is clearly provided and well developed. Article title and year published section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis (Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is not included. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is present. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and well developed. Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative), and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of Qualitative) Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is not included. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is present. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is clearly provided and well developed. Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Setting or Sample Setting or sample section is not included. Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Setting or sample section is present. Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well developed. Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
5.0 %Methods: Intervention or Instruments Methods: Intervention or instruments section is not included. Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Methods: Intervention or instruments section is present. Methods: Intervention or instruments section is clearly provided and well developed. Methods: Intervention or instruments section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Analysis Analysis section is not included. Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Analysis section is present. Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed. Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Key Findings Key findings section is not included. Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Key findings section is present. Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed. Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Recommendations Recommendations section is not included. Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Recommendations section is present. Recommendations section is clearly provided and well developed. Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or Capstone Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is not included. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is present. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is clearly provided and well developed. Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting details.
10.0 %Presentation The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all required elements. The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of required elements. The overall appearance is general, and major elements are missing. The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor flaws or missing elements. The work is well presented and includes all required elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.
10.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
Hourly Rounding: Perspectives and Perceptions of the Frontline Nursing Staff
Fabry, D. (2014). Hourly rounding: perspectives and perceptions of the frontline nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Management, 23(2), 200-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12114
‘Caring Around the Clock’: a New Approach to Intentional Rounding.
Hutchings, Marie; Ward, Paula; Bloodworth, Kerry. Nursing Management – UK. Sep2013, Vol. 20 Issue 5, p24-30. 7p. 4 Charts, 1 Graph., Database: Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition
Can Rounding Reduce Patient Falls in Acute Care? An Integrative Literature Review.
Hicks, Darlene. MEDSURG Nursing. Jan/Feb2015, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p51-55. 5p., Database: Academic Search Complete.
Locator System Can Track Hourly Rounding.
Helwick, Caroline; Oncology Nurse-APN/PA, Sep2016; 9(5): 9-10. 2p. (Article) ISSN: 1944-9798, Database: CINAHL Complete
Hourly Rounding with a Purpose.
Hourly Rounding References
Berg, Karla; Sailors, Christina; Reimer, Ronda; O’Brien, Yvonne; Ward-Smith, Peggy; Iowa Nurse Reporter, Dec2011; 24(3): 12-14. 3p. (Journal Article – research, tables/charts), CINAHL Complete.
Outcomes and Challenges in Implementing Hourly Rounds to Reduce Falls in Orthopedic Units.
Sharon J. Tucker, Patti L. Bieber, Jacqueline M. Attlesey-Pries, Marianne E. Olson, Ross A. Dierkhising Worldviews Evid Based Nurse. 2012 Feb; 9(1): 18–29. Published online 2011 Sep 19. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2011. 00227.x
Introducing Intentional Rounding: A Pilot Project.
Dewing, J., & O’Meara, B. (2013). Introducing Intentional Rounding: A Pilot Project. Nursing Standard, 28(6), 37-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns2013.10.28.6.37.e7652
Joint Commission Issues Sentinel Event Alert on Patient Falls
Commins, J. (2015). Joint Commission Issues Sentinel Event Alert on Patient Falls. Health leader media. Retrieved 2 July 2017, from http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/…/joint-commission-issues-sentinel-event-alert-patient-f.
Implementation of evidence-based falls prevention in clinical services for high-risk clients.
Day, L., Trotter, M. J., Hill, K. D., Haines, T. P., & Thompson, C. (2014). Implementation of evidence-based falls prevention in clinical services for high-risk clients. Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 20(3), 255-259. doi:10.1111/jep.12119
Attitudes of nursing staff toward interprofessional in-patient-centered rounding.
Sharma, U., & Klocke, D. (2014). Attitudes of nursing staff toward interprofessional in-patient-centered rounding. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(5), 475-477. doi:10.3109/13561820.2014.907558
