Research Critique Paper (Nursing)

Please follow APA 7th edition 

Attached:

Instructions, Rubric and Articles for reference and citation. 

Instructions for Research Critique Paper

.

This is paired students project.

The Pair of students will collaborate and will write a critique of a full-text research article, published in a peer

reviewed journal. The article can be either a qualitative or a quantitative research article of interest.

It must meet the following criteria:

1. Original research studies, preferably published from 2016 to the present.

2. Include at least 3 cited resources to substantiate the findings of your critique.

3. You may cite and include in the reference page the guidelines you used for critiquing the article in the reference

page of the document.

4. The content of your critique should include:

Title page

Describe the problem and purpose of the study (like a Summary). Is the problem of the study discussed in the

introduction? Was the significance of the study established in the introduction? What is the significance f the study?

Describe the research methods, including the process of data collection, sampling, and data analysis, for the research

study. Identify the specific aims/objectives. Who were the subjects and or the participants? What sampling approach

was undertaken and why? How sample size was used for the variables(s). What instrument(s) was used?. How

reliability and validity were established. Summarize the major findings and conclusions of the study.

Critic the strength and weaknesses of the research methods. The expectation is that you include your textbook as a

resource.

How this study is relevant to evidence-based practice in nursing. When you are ready to submit, please use the drop

box created for the submission.

You will also, consider following or observing the guidelines recommended by the QEP College-wide initiative for

writing scholarly paper found another file inside the syllabus.

Please do not hesitate to send me an email inside BB messaging or at [email protected] for more clarifications if

needed.

https://mdc.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContentEditable.jsp?content_id=_7890560_1&course_id=_150895_1&mode=reset#contextMe

Rubric for Research Critique Paper

Each paired students will collaborate and write a critique of a full-text research article. the article can be either a
qualitative or a quantitative research article of interest, published by a reliable publishing company and peer-
reviewed article. (Correction, this is paired )

It must meet the following criteria:

1. Original research studies, preferably published from 2016 to the present. (5 pts)

2. Include at least 3 cited resources to substantiate the findings of your critique. (5 pts)

3. You may use and include in the reference page the guidelines for critiquing study on the reference page. (5 pts)

4. No more than a total of 5 pages; APA format (5 pts)

5. Observe the guidelines as suggested in the QEP College-wide Initiatives found in another under the course
content (10 pts)

6. The content of your critique should include:

Title page (5 pts)

Describe the problem and purpose of the study (like a Summary). Is the problem of the study discussed in
the introduction? Was the significance of the study established in the introduction? What is the significance
of the study? (20 pts

Describe the research methods, including the process of data collection, sampling, and data analysis, for the
research study. Identify the specific aims/objectives. Who were the subjects and or the participants? What
sampling approach was undertaken and why? How sample size was used for the variables(s). What
instrument(s) was used?. How reliability and validity were established. Summarize the major findings and
conclusions of the study. (20 pts)

Critic the strength and weaknesses of the research methods. The expectation is that you include your
textbook as a resource. (20 pts)

How this study is relevant to evidence-based practice in nursing. When you are ready to submit, please use
the drop box created for the submission. (10 pts)

  • Rubric for Research Critique Paper

3. Maintain and improve physical conditioning
through early exercise and mobility.21-28 [level C]

4. Elevate the head of bed (HOB) to 30º to 45º unless
clinically contraindicated in patients receiving
mechanical ventilation, as well as patients at high
risk for aspiration.29-32 [level C]

5. Minimize pooling of secretions above the endo-
tracheal tube cuff by using an endotracheal tube
with subglottic suction capability in patients
with anticipated intubation greater than 48 to
72 hours.33-39 [level C]

6. Change ventilator circuits only if visibly soiled;
do not change ventilator circuits routinely.40-43
[level C]

AACN Practice Alert

Scope and Impact of the Problem
Critically ill patients who are intubated are at risk

for development of ventilator-associated pneumonia
(VAP). The National Healthcare Safety Network
reported that the incidence of VAP for various types
of hospital units is from 0.0 to 4.4 per 1000 ventilator
days.1 Although reported incidence rates have been
steadily declining, it remains unclear whether this
decrease is related to prevention efforts, reporting
defi nitions, or a combination of the two.

The mortality associated with VAP is signifi cant.
Published mortality rates are from 0% to 70%, depend-
ing on the population studied, clinical condition, and
timing of VAP identification and antibiotic admin-
istration. More recent meta-analyses report VAP-
attributable mortality rates between 4.4% and 13%.2-6

Expected Nursing Practice
1. Collaborate to identify patients where implemen-

tation of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation
(NIPPV) may be appropriate to prevent the need
for intubation.7-9 [level C]

2. Assess readiness to extubate daily through com-
bined spontaneous awakening trials (SATs: seda-
tion interruption/minimization) and spontaneous
breathing trials (SBTs), unless clinically contrain-
dicated.10-20 [level C]

©2017 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses doi:https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017460

Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
in Adults

AACN Levels of Evidence

Level A Meta-analysis of quantitative studies or
metasynthesis of qualita tive studies with results that
consis tently support a specifi c action, intervention, or
treatment (including systematic review of randomized
controlled trials)

Level B Well-designed, controlled studies with results
that consistently support a specifi c action, intervention,
or treatment

Level C Qualitative studies, descriptive or correlational
studies, integrative reviews, systematic reviews, or
randomized controlled trials with inconsistent results

Level D Peer-reviewed professional and organizational
standards with the support of clinical study recommen-
dations

Level E Multiple case reports, theory- based evidence
from expert opinions, o

521Rev Bras Enferm [Internet]. 2019;72(2):521-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0473

ABSTRACT
Objective: to identify studies about strategies for prevention of ventilator-associated
pneumonia deployed in health services and classify their level of evidence. Method:
integrative review of the literature, in 7 databases, which included the following descriptors:
Prevention and Control AND Pneumonia Ventilator-Associated AND Intensive Care
Units AND Bundle AND Patient Care. Results: twenty-three scientific productions were
included. Of the preventive measures identified, 9 (39.1%) correspond from three to five
strategies. The most frequent were: 22 (95.6%) lying with head elevated, 19 (82.6%) oral
hygiene with chlorhexidine and 14 (60.8%) reduction of sedation whenever possible. Final
Consideration: the application of measures based on scientific evidence is proven to be
effective when carried out in conjunction, impacting the reduction of the incidence of
ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Descriptors: Disease Prevention; Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia; Patient Care Bundles;
Intensive Care Unit; Nursing.

RESUMO
Objetivo: identificar estudos acerca de estratégias de prevenção de pneumonia associada
à ventilação mecânica implantadas em serviços de saúde e classificar o nível de evidência
destes. Método: revisão integrativa da literatura, em sete bases de dados, incluindo
os seguintes descritores: “Prevention and Control AND Pneumonia Ventilator-Associated
AND Intensive Care Units AND Bundle AND Patient Care”. Resultados: foram incluídas 23
produções científicas. Dentre os conjuntos de medidas de prevenção identificados, nove
(39,1%) contemplam de três a cinco estratégias. As mais frequentes foram: decúbito
elevado – 22 (95,6%); higiene oral com clorexidina – 19 (82,6%); e redução da sedação
sempre que possível – 14 (60,8%). Considerações Finais: a aplicação de medidas baseadas
em evidências científicas são comprovadamente eficazes quando aplicadas em conjunto,
impactando na redução da densidade de incidência de pneumonia associada à ventilação
mecânica.
Descritores: Prevenção de Doenças; Pneumonia Associada à Ventilação Mecânica; Pacotes
de Assistência ao Paciente; Unidades de Terapia Intensiva; Enfermagem.

RESUMEN
Objetivo: identificar estudios sobre estrategias de prevención de neumonía asociadas a la
ventilación mecánica implantadas en servicios de salud y clasificar el nivel de evidencia de
los mismos. Método: revisión integrativa de la literatura, en 7 bases de datos, que incluyó
los siguientes descriptores: Prevention and Control AND Pneumonia Ventilator-Associated
AND Intensive Care Units AND Bundle AND Patient Care. Resultados: Se incluyeron 23
producciones científicas. Entre los conjuntos de medidas de prevención identificados, 9
(39,1%) contemplan entre tres a cinco estrategias. Fueron las más frecuentes: el decúbito
elevado, 22 (95,6%

By S. Labeau, RN, MSc, D.M. Vandijck, RN, MSc, MA, B. Claes, RN, MSc, P. Van
Aken, RN, MSc, and S.I. Blot, RN, MSc, PhD, on behalf of the executive board of
the Flemish Society for Critical Care Nurses

Background Nurses’ lack of knowledge may be a barrier to adherence to evi-
dence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Objective To develop a reliable and valid questionnaire for evaluating critical
care nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-

associated pneumonia.

Methods Ten nursing-related interventions were identified from a review of
evidence-based guidelines for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia.

Selected interventions and multiple-choice questions (1 question per interven-

tion) were subjected to face and content validation. Item difficulty, item dis-

crimination, and the quality of the response alternatives or options for

answers (possible responses) were evaluated on the test results of 638 critical

care nurses.

Results Face and content validity were achieved for 9 items. Values for item
difficulty ranged from 0.1 to 0.9. Values for item discrimination ranged from

0.10 to 0.65. The quality of the response alternatives led to the detection of

widespread misconceptions among critical care nurses.

Conclusion The questionnaire is reliable and has face and content validity.
Results of surveys with this questionnaire can be used to focus educational

programs on preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. (American Journal

of Critical Care. 2007;16:371-377)

CRITICAL CARE NURSES’
KNOWLEDGE OF EVIDENCE-
BASED GUIDELINES FOR
PREVENTING VENTILATOR-
ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA:
AN EVALUATION
QUESTIONNAIRE

Critical Care Evaluation

www.ajcconline.org AAJJCCCC AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, July 2007, Volume 16, No. 4 371

Recently, lack of knowledge was indicated as a
barrier for adherence to evidence-based practice.23

Although knowledge does not ensure adherence,
misconceptions about effective prevention strategies
can be important in decision making. The reduc-
tions in the rates of hospital-acquired infection26,27

that occurred after educational programs on strate-
gies to prevent infection provide indirect evidence
for the value of knowledge.

Our objective was to develop a reliable and
valid questionnaire to determine critical care nurses’
knowledge of evidence-based guidelines for prevent-
ing VAP.

Methods
Selection of Interventions and Design of the
Questionnaire

The selection of interventions or strategies to
prevent VAP was based on a recently published
review14 of evidence-based guidelines. In a search for
relevant randomized, controlled trials and system-
atic reviews that involved adults who were treated
with mechanica

M u ltip le A p p ro a c h e s to
P re v e n tin g V e n tila to r-a s s o c ia te d

Pneumonia
R e c e n t d a ta p o in ts to a c r o s s – th e -b o a r d d e c lin e s in h o s p i ta l – a c q u ir e d

in fe c t io n s in A m e r ic a n h o s p ita ls — e x c e p t fo r v e n t i la to r -a s s o c ia te d

p n e u m o n ia , w h ic h r e m a in s a p e r s is te n t d a n g e r to p a t ie n ts .

BY PHYLLIS H A N LO N

www. rtmagazine. com

In 2007, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) created the Triple Aim,1 which focused on “improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations
and reducing per capita cost of healthcare.” Since that time,
healthcare systems across the country have ramped up efforts to
reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions (HAC),
which account for some readmissions, declining health, and
rising costs. To some degree, those efforts are paying off. The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported
approximately 87,000 fewer inpatient deaths and a 17% decline
in hospital-acquired conditions from 2010 to 2014, resulting in
a reduction of almost $40 billion in healthcare costs.

Specifically, in its 2013 update on Annual Hospital-acquired
Conditions Rate and Estimates of Cost Savings and Deaths
Averted from 2010 to 2013, HHS cited a decrease in catheter-
associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) of 28%; central
line associated blood stream infections (CLABSI) experienced
an impressive 49% reduction. However, rates o f ventilator-
associated pneumonia (VAP) and ventilator-associated events
(VAE) failed to realize such reductions.

Reducing Infections Through Partnerships
Nancy E. Foster, vice president of Quality and Patient Safety

Policy at the American Hospital Association (AHA), said,
“W e are also making progress on surgical site infections, but
there is more work to be done. W e haven’t seen as rapid a
reduction with ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilator-
associated events for a wide variety of reasons.” She pointed
out that “squishy” data leads to variations in interpretation.
“Even though the CDC offered good definitions, people are
still reading different things into what qualifies as pneumonia.
W e need to get a consistent definition so we know the data
collection changes reflect real changes in care.”

Working closely with the Association for Healthcare Research
and Quality (AHRQ), the AHA is helping to promote efforts
to implement successful strategies for reducing safety events,
particularly infections. ‘W e are focused like a laser beam on
reducing infections. Sharing these strategies with hospitals across
the nation will help as they step through,” Foster said. “W e are
bringing hospitals together to talk about what to do differently,
what reminders they use. We are sharing in col