Assignment: NRS 465 Week 6 Benchmark Literature Review

Assignment: NRS 465 Week 6 Benchmark Literature Review

Assignment: NRS 465 Week 6 Benchmark Literature Review

WEEK 6 Benchmark – Literature Review
Patient falls, especially in the geriatric population, are a safety concern because of their significant impact on the quality of care and patient outcomes. Purposeful hourly rounding as an evidence-based practice (EBP) approach to addressing patient falls is effective and can help geriatric settings reduce and prevent falls. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the proposed intervention, purposeful hourly rounding to reduce and prevent falls in the geriatric population based on the eight peer-reviewed articles evaluated in the literature evaluation table.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

PICOT Question
In elderly hospitalized patients (Population/problem), how does purposeful hourly rounding (Intervention) compared to normal rounding by nurses (Comparison) reduce the rate of falls by 40% (Outcome) within three months (Time, optional)?
Summary of the Purpose of the Studies
The purpose of the reviewed studies is to demonstrate the efficacy and effectiveness of purposeful hourly rounding in reducing and preventing patient falls in geriatric settings. The study by Roberts et al. (2020) examines the effects of a 20-minute rounding on patient falls in aged-care facilities while Allari et al. (2023) focus on nurses’ perception of caring using hourly rounding. Anu et al. (2021) focus on the effects of hourly rounding and patient education while Leamy et al. (2023) demonstrate the positive benefits of intentional hourly rounding on patient falls. The other studies by Di Massimo et al. (2022); Ryan et al. (2022), Sims et al. (2020), and Rasmussen et al. (2022) illustrate the importance of intentional hourly rounding to reduce and prevent falls in the geriatric population. These studies illustrate the benefits healthcare organizations and providers derive from implementing hourly rounding.
Comparison of sample Populations
The studies use different sample populations to illustrate the efficacy of intentional hourly rounding. The study by Di Massimo et al. (2022) uses 485 research subjects while Sims et al. (2020) presents a sample of 112 subjects comprising various demographics. In their study, Rasmussen et al. (2022) used a population sample of 102 volunteers. Roberts et al. (2020) use a population sample of 41 individuals from aged care facilities. Allari et al. (2023) used 1378 participants in their study while Anu (2020) deployed 61 subjects. Leamy et al. (2023) used a population sample of 138 participants. As such, these population samples differ based on the aspect of intentional rounding that the investigators are interested in their research. A comparison of the sample population demonstrates that a majority of the studies used small sample sizes due to various reasons and factors. The study by Allari et al. (2023) had the highest sample of over 1300 participants which validates it as an effective outcome because of having a large sample size. However, such a sample size requires significant resources which many researchers and organizations may not have and deploy.
Synthesis of the Conclusions: Themes
The eight reviewed studies demonstrate the effectiveness of intentional hourly rounding as an effective EBP strategy to reduce and prevent falls in geriatric settings or practices. The core themes from the studies include improving quality outcomes, enhancing patient safety, better satisfaction levels for providers, and a rise in reimbursement amounts. For instance, in their conclusion, Roberts et al. (2020) assert that purposeful hourly rounding improved quality outcomes by reducing falls among the geriatric population. Further, Allari et al. (2023) concluded that positive perception from nurses is critical to improving patient outcomes and enhancing safety as it reduces biased interpretation and assistance to patients who require care. The article by Anu (2021) demonstrates that a reduction in falls improved patient safety within the facility. Similarly, Leamy et al. (2023) show that managing patient falls is critical to improving safety and quality care outcomes. The study implores nurses to embrace hourly purposeful rounding as an effective way to attain patient safety and better outcomes.
Additionally, articles by Di Massimo et al. (2022), Ryan et al. (2022), Sims et al. (2020) and Rasmussen et al. (2022) all demonstrate that intentional rounding is critical in attaining patient safety, quality care outcomes, and improving satisfaction levels besides bettering interactions and inter-professional collaboration among the different healthcare providers in multidisciplinary teams. The implication is that these studies illustrate the effectiveness of purposeful hourly rounding as an evidence-based practice strategy to reduce and prevent patient falls in geriatric settings.
Summary of the Limitations of the Studies
The main limitations of the reviewed literature studies include small sample populations, limited time to implement the proposed intervention and resource limitations. These limitations hindered the effective collection of sufficient data to improve findings and evidence. For instance, findings from studies with less than 100 participants cannot be generalized to larger populations because of their scope. While the findings may be valid, they may not reflect the real or true picture of the efficacy of the intervention. Besides, some studies assert that they had limited time.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Purposeful hourly rounding can help facilities and providers in geriatric settings to reduce and prevent the occurrence of falls among patients. As illustrated through these studies, intentional rounding ensures that providers monitor patients to prevent falls by prompt responses as compared to self-reporting. Nurse practitioners should embrace purposeful rounding as an EBP intervention to reduce falls. The studies recommend more future research to determine the effects of various aspects and factors within the organization that can hinder the implementation of the proposed intervention.

References
Allari, R. S., & Hamdan, K. (2023). Caring Behavior and Hourly Rounding: Nurses’ Perception.
The open nursing journal, 17(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/18744346-v17-e230210-2022-118
Anu, J. A. (2021). Hourly Rounding and fall prevention among the elderly in long-term care: a
change process. Journal of geriatric medicine, 3(1): 1-5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/jgm.v3i1.2614
Di Massimo, D. S., Catania, G., Crespi, A., Fontanella, A., Manfellotto, D., La Regina, M., … &
INTENTO Study Group. (2022). Intentional Rounding versus Standard of Care for Patients Hospitalised in Internal Medicine Wards: Results from a Cluster-Randomised Nation-Based Study. Journal of clinical medicine, 11(14): 3976.
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11143976
Leamy, M., Sims, S., Levenson, R., Davies, N., Brearley, S., Gourlay, S., … & Harris, R. (2023).
Intentional rounding: a realist evaluation using case studies in acute and care of older people hospital wards. BMC health services research, 23(1):1341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10358-1
Rasmussen, T. R. (2022). An Enhanced Purposeful Hourly Rounding Program: Impact of
Proactive Toileting on Rates of Falls and Injurious Falls. Georgetown University. https://www.proquest.com/openview/32c90604dba320472434dd55cfdd467c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Roberts, B., Holloway-Kew, K., Pretorius, T., Hosking, S., Kennedy, A., & Armstrong, K.
(2020). Does 20-min rounding reduce falls in an aged-care setting? A pilot intervention study. Geriatric nursing, 41(5): 579-584. DOI: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2020.03.003
Ryan, L., Jackson, D., East, L., Woods, C., & Usher, K. (2022). Mixed Methods Study
Integration: Nursing student experiences and opinions of intentional rounding. Journal of advanced nursing, 78(6): 1787-1797. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15197
Sims, S., Leamy, M., Levenson, R., Brearley, S., Ross, F., & Harris, R. (2020). The delivery of
compassionate nursing care in a tick-box culture: qualitative perspectives from a realist evaluation of intentional rounding. International journal of nursing studies, 107, 103580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103580

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Assessment Traits

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

Assignment: NRS 465 Week 6 Benchmark Literature Review

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Benchmark

Requires Lopeswrite

Assessment Description

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.

A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the PICOT question from the earlier “PICOT Question” template and information from the “Literature Evaluation Table” assignment to develop a review.

Using eight peer-reviewed articles, write 750-1,000-word review that includes the following sections:

Introduction section (including PICOT Question)

A summary of the purpose of the studies

A comparison of sample populations

A synthesis of the studies’ conclusions (when looking at all of the studies together, group the conclusions by themes )

A summary of the limitations of the studies

A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research

You are required to cite a minimum of eight peer-reviewed articles to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the past 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines 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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

RN-BSN

4.1: Advance the scholarship of nursing.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education

This assignment aligns to AACN Core Competencies 4.1

Skip to main contentEnable accessibility for visually impairedOpen the accessibility menuOpen the Accessible Navigation Menu

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Benchmark – Literature Review – Rubric

LISTGRID

PRINT TO PDF

Rubric Criteria

Total40 points

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Insufficient 3. Approaching 4. Acceptable 5. Target
Introduction

Provide an introduction section, including the PICOT question.

0 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is missing.

1.5 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is inaccurate or incomplete.

1.58 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is present, but lacks detail.

1.78 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is mostly detailed.

2 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is thorough and accurate.

Purpose of Studies

Summarize the purpose of each study.

0 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is missing.

3 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.16 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is present but lacks detail.

3.56 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is mostly detailed.

4 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is thorough and accurate.

Comparison of Sample Populations

Compare the sample population(s) of each study.

0 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is missing.

3 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.16 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is present but lacks detail.

3.56 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is mostly detailed.

4 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is thorough and accurate.

Synthesis of Studies’ Conclusion (B)

Synthesize the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes. The student demonstrates an understanding of evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning. (C4.1)

0 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is missing. The student was unable to incorporate evidence-based practice to advance the scholarship of learning.

7.5 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is inaccurate or incomplete. The student demonstrates an inconsistent ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

7.9 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is present but lacks detail. The student demonstrates a general ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

8.9 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is mostly detailed. The student demonstrates an adequate ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

10 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is thorough and accurate. The student demonstrates a clear ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

Summary of the Limitations of the Study

Summarize the limitation(s) of each study.

0 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is missing.

3 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.16 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is present but lacks detail.

3.56 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is mostly detailed.

4 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is thorough and accurate.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research

Include a conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research.

0 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is missing.

3 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is inaccurate or incomplete.

3.16 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is present but lacks detail.

3.56 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is mostly detailed.

4 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is thorough and accurate.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

2.1 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

2.21 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2.49 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

2.8 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

2.1 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

2.21 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2.49 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2.8 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

Evidence

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

1.8 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1.9 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2.14 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

2.4 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

Mechanics of Writing

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

1.8 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1.9 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2.14 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

2.4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

Format/Documentation

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

1.2 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1.26 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

1.42 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

1.6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

Assignment: NRS 465 Week 6 Benchmark Literature Review

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Open chat
WhatsApp chat +1 908-954-5454
We are online
Our papers are plagiarism-free, and our service is private and confidential. Do you need any writing help?