NUR 550 Topic 5

Assignment: Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature Table

NUR 550 Topic 5 Assessment Description

The purpose of this assignment is to provide research evidence in support of the PICOT you developed for your selected topic.

Conduct a search for 10 peer-reviewed, translational research articles published within the last 5 years that demonstrate support for your PICOT. You may include previous research articles from assignments completed in this course. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” provided to evaluate the articles and explain how the research supports your PICOT.

Once your instructor returns this assignment, review the feedback and make any revisions necessary. If you are directed by your instructor to select different articles in order to meet the assignment criteria or to better support your PICOT, make these changes accordingly. You will use the literature evaluated in this assignment for all subsequent assignments you develop as part of your evidence-based practice project proposal in this course and in NUR-590, during which you will synthesize all of the sections into a final written paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

ORDER  A WELL RESEARCHED, AI FREE ASSIGNMENT NUR 550 Topic 5 HERE

What is special with us? We prioritize customer satisfaction by offering a “pay after delivery” policy, meaning you will pay when you’re fully satisfied with the quality of your work. Our commitment to originality means that every assignment is compiled from scratch, thoroughly checked for plagiarism and AI, and tailored to meet your specific requirements. We guarantee timely delivery, meaning you are assured that your assignments will always be submitted on time.

Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting 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 LopesWrite.

Attachments

NUR-550-RS5-LiteratureEvaluationTable.d

NUR 550 Topic 5 Rubric

LISTGRID

PRINT TO PDF

Rubric Criteria

Total150 points

Criterion

1. Unsatisfactory

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3. Satisfactory

4. Good

5. Excellent

PICOT

PICOT
0 points

The PICOT is omitted.
6 points

NA
6.6 points

NA
6.9 points

NA
7.5 points

The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented.

Articles

Articles
0 points

Required number of sources are not included. Article citations and permalinks are omitted.

12 points

Number of required sources is only partially met. Article citations and permalinks are presented. One or more links do not lead to the intended article.
13.2 points

Number of required sources is met, but some sources are outdated or inappropriate. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are errors.

13.8 points

Sources are current and generally appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are minor errors.

15 points

Sources are current and highly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurate.

Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study

Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study
0 points

Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for one or more articles is omitted.
12 points

Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
13.2 points

Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. NUR 550 Topic 5

13.8 points

Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is adequately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
15 points

A discussion on the research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study is thoroughly and accurately presented for each article.

Study Design

Study Design
0 points

The study design for one or more article is omitted.
12 points

The study design for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
13.2 points

The study design is indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

13.8 points

The study design is adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
15 points

A thorough and accurate discussion on the study design for each article is presented.

Setting and Sample

Setting and Sample
0 points

The setting and sample are omitted for one or more of the articles.
12 points

The setting and sample are indicated for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

13.2 points

The setting and sample are indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
13.8 points

The setting and sample are adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.

15 points

The setting and sample in which the researcher conducted the study are detailed and accurate for each article.

Methods

Methods

0 points

Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete.
12 points

The method of study is presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
13.2 points

The method of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies
13.8 points

An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
15 points

A thorough and accurate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.

Analysis and Data Collection

Analysis and Data Collection
0 points

Analysis and data collection for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the analysis and data collection are incomplete.

12 points

Analysis and data collection are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.

13.2 points

Analysis and data collection for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.
13.8 points

An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
15 points

A thorough and accurate discussion on the analysis and data collection for each article is presented. NUR 550 Topic 5

Outcomes and Key Findings

Outcomes and Key Findings

0 points

Outcomes and key findings for one or more articles are omitted. Overall, the outcomes and key findings are incomplete.

12 points

Outcomes and key findings are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout.
13.2 points

Outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies.

13.8 points

An adequate discussion on outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
15 points

A thorough and accurate discussion on the outcomes and key findings collection for each article are presented.

Recommendations

Recommendations

0 points

Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete.

12 points

Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete.
13.2 points

Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete.

13.8 points

Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity.
15 points

Researcher recommendations are accurately and thoroughly described for each article.

Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal

Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal
0 points

An explanation of how the article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is omitted for one or more of the articles. The explanation for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
12 points

An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete.
13.2 points

A general explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for one article is inaccurate or incomplete. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is generally evident.
13.8 points

An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Adequate support for the evidence-based project proposal is demonstrated.
15 points

A detailed explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is clearly evident.

Mechanics of Writing

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
6 points

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.

6.6 points

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.
6.9 points

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.
7.5 points

The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

NUR 550 Topic 5 Sample

Learner Name:

PICOT:

Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article	Article Title and Year Published	Research Questions/ Hypothesis, and Purpose/Aim of Study	Design (Quantitative, Qualitative, or other)	Setting/Sample	Methods: Intervention/ Instruments	Analysis/Data Collection	Outcomes/Key Findings	Recommendations	Explanation of How the Article Supports Your Proposed EBP Practice Project Proposal
Ek et al., Nordic Journal of Nursing Research, https://doi.org/10.1177/20571585221107266	ICU nurses’ experiences of medication double-checking: a qualitative study Year published: 2022	The research question was: What experiences do intensive care nurses have of practicing medication double-checking in the ICU? The purpose of the study was to explore ICU nurses’ experiences and perceptions of medication double-checking.	Qualitative design (explorative)	The study was conducted at ICUs in central eastern Norway. The informants included nine ICU nurses.	Ek et al. (2022) conducted focus group discussions. The two focus groups included four and five informants with experience as ICU nurses.	Data from the focus group interviews were collected in February and March 2021, recorded on electronic audiotape, and analyzed via systematic text condensation (thematic and cross-case analysis)	Ek et al. (2022) established nurses were reluctant to administer high-risk medications without prior double-checking. It helped reduce medication errors and related fatal consequences since nurses do not prepare potent medications independently. Nurses also identified barriers to double-checking through a formal protocol, including understaffing, absence of written medication orders, and physical unit design.	The study recommends formal double-checking guidelines in hospitals along with better staffing ratios to reduce medication errors.	The study supports double-checking through formal protocols to reduce medication errors stemming from high-risk medications.
Kuppadakkath et al., International Journal of Older People Nursing, https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12567	Nurses’ perspectives on medication errors and prevention strategies in residential aged care facilities through a national survey Year Published: 2023	Hypothesis: effective medication management through standardized policies and alert systems would reduce medication errors in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). The study evaluated and quantified the contributing factors of medication errors and prevention strategies in RACFs	Quantitative design	The survey was conducted in RACFs in Australia among 140 registered nurses (RNs) and endorsed enrolled nurses (EENs).	Researchers employed a cross-sectional survey design. RNs and EENs completed a survey of 24 items (12 on causes and 12 on prevention).	Through the surveys, researchers collected data on contributing factors of medication errors and prevention strategies. Data analysis was through descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis.	The study outcomes were the causes of medication errors and prevention strategies from the nurses’ perspectives. The leading causes emerged as using agency staffing and delays in receiving laboratory results. Medication safety alerts, process improvement through medication double-checking and confirmation, barcode scanning, and reporting were identified as reliable solutions.	Researchers recommend a holistic approach to preventing medication errors associated with high-risk drugs. In addition to double-checking or triple-checking standardized protocols, healthcare organizations need interprofessional collaboration for safe medication management.	The study supports the proposed project by providing evidence of the value of dual verification protocol in reducing medication errors.
Van Stralen et al., Heliyon, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25637	Evaluating deviations and considerations in daily practice when double-checking high-risk medication administration: a qualitative study using the FRAM. Year published: 2024	Researchers hypothesized that most variations occur during the actions involving a second nurse for a double check. Time pressure and the availability of colleagues cause deviation from double-check guidelines. The study investigated high-risk medication preparation and administration process and variations experienced in daily practice.	Qualitative design	The study was conducted in ten Dutch hospital wards among 77 nurses.	Researchers applied the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) to develop a model mimicking the Dutch guidelines and a ward-overarching model that visualized daily practice. Semi-structured interviews provided data on high-risk medication preparation and administration.	Data were collected between June 2020 and June 2021. All interviews were executed one-on-one between participants and researchers. The data was audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using MAXQDA 11 software. Reasonings (transcripts) behind deviations were analyzed using inductive and deductive coding.	Researchers found double-check instrumental in addressing medication errors but variations in double-check procedures occur due to time pressure and nurses’ dependence on subconscious reasoning. Consequently, a standardized dual verification protocol is crucial to make double-check habitual or unnecessary for certain medications.	Researchers recommended future research based on the FRAM insights to make ward-specific alterations for double-check medication procedures that focus on feasibility in daily practice and patient safety.	The article supports double-check procedures for high-risk medications and a standard protocol to ensure adherence and optimize patient safety.
NUR 550 Topic 5 Ting et al., Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2020.24.004081	Nurses’ preferences of single or double checking of drug administration: a focus group study Year published: 2021	What factors determine nurses’ preference for single or double-checking of medication administration. The study explored the nurses’ preference on single or double checking of drug administration.	Qualitative design	The study was conducted at Sime Darby Hospital among six nurses from the ICU, general ward, medical-surgical unit, and pediatric wards.	Researchers used purposive sampling to select the six nurses. The nurses were interviewed (focus group interviews) to express and share their perceptions.	A moderator noted down the interview responses on experiences of medication administration, preference (single or double-checking), impacts on patient safety, and thoughts on the impacts of their preferences on medication errors. The explored preferences were analyzed thematically using manual coding.	The nurses preferred double-checking over single-checking due to its impacts on patient safety. Double-checking prevents medication errors, hence improved patient safety, which is among nurses’ core mandates. Nurses identified training and education, documentation, patient safety, and manpower, as key determinants when choosing between single- or double-check administrations.	Researchers recommended double-checking for high-risk drugs when monitoring patients in addition to before medication administration. Doing so ensures adequate prevention of adverse reactions or possible side effects.	The article supports dual verification for medications to prevent medication errors. It underscores the significance of a protocol where dual verification is mandatory during medication administration and patient monitoring.
Dumitrescu et al., Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-022-00476-2	Home care nurses’ management of high-risk medications: a cross-sectional study Year published: 2022	How do home care nurses manage high-risk medications? The study aimed to describe the home care nurses’ management of high-risk medications.	Quantitative design	The study was conducted in home care facilities in Flanders, Belgium. Participants were 2283 home care nurses.	Researchers employed a cross-sectional, descriptive design. After recruitment via convenience sampling, participants completed an online structured questionnaire.	Data were collected on nurses’ work experience, attitude toward high-risk medications, contact, risk-assessment, severity of harm, and initiatives and measures for improving high-risk medications care. Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze the questionnaires.	Nurses reported dealing with high-risk medications, and individual double check was the most performed (approximately 73.7%) risk reduction procedure for all medications apart from lithium.	Researchers recommended implementing and evaluating more standardized protocols for high-risk medications, including guidelines and continuous training for home care nurses.	The article supports implementing double-check procedures for high-risk medications to reduce safety risks, particularly medication errors.
Westbrook et al., BMJ Quality & Safety, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011473	Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients Year published: 2021	Mandatory double-checking impacts medication administration errors (MAEs). The study aimed to measure the link between double-checking, occurrence, and potential severity of MAEs; check duration, and factors influencing double-checking adherence.	Quantitative design	The study was conducted in a pediatric hospital in Sydney, across nine wards among 298 nurses.	Researchers conducted a prospective direct observational study of medication administration processes to children within the hospital. Seven observers attended wards to conduct the observations during key administration times.	Relevant data were collected on administrations and double-checking and compared with patients’ medical records by a reviewer. Data analysis was conducted through multivariable regression to examine the link between double-checking, MAEs, severity, and factors impacting policy adherence.	Where double-checking was not mandatory, 26.3% of the nurses chose to double-check. Where mandated, researchers found no significant link between the process and MAEs or potential severity. However, where double-checking was not mandated but performed, MAEs were less likely to occur (p = 0.02) and had lower potential severity (p = 0.02).	Policy-mandated double-checking requires further exploration since nurses, including a critical reappraisal of present policies and integration of more innovation.	The study found a positive link between double-checking performance and the occurrence of MAEs.

NUR 550 Topic 5 Conclusion

Medication errors result in adverse occurrences and heightened healthcare expenditures. Obligatory dual verification for high-risk drugs is crucial to improve patient safety and reduce medication errors. The reviewed literature suggests that implementing dual verification could reduce medication errors and is a practice highly embraced by nurses. To ensure full compliance, dual verification protocols are crucial in high-risk settings like acute care environments. Organizations should also support the policy implementation through continuous training and education of nurses in order to sustain a culture of safety.

NUR 550 Topic 5 References

Dumitrescu, I., Casteels, M., De Vliegher, K., Mortelmans, L., & Dilles, T. (2022). Home care nurses’ management of high-risk medications: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 15(1), 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-022-00476-2

Ek, V. S., Solevåg, A. L., & Solberg, M. T. (2022). ICU nurses’ experiences of medication double-checking: a qualitative study. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research, 42(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/20571585221107266

Kuppadakkath, S. C., Bhowmik, J., Olasoji, M., & Garvey, L. (2023). Nurses’ perspectives on medication errors and prevention strategies in residential aged care facilities through a national survey. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 18(6), e12567. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12567

Ting, G. H., Xufen, W., Li, L. H., Wen, O. L., Choo, L. S., Suchi, U., & Dioso, R. I. (2021). Nurses’ preferences of single or double checking of drug administration: a focus group study. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, 24(4), 18414-18417. http://dx.doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2020.24.004081

Van Stralen, S. A., van Eikenhorst, L., Vonk, A. S., Schutijser, B. C., & Wagner, C. (2024). Evaluating deviations and considerations in daily practice when double-checking high-risk medication administration: a qualitative study using the FRAM. Heliyon, 10(4), e25637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25637

Westbrook, J. I., Li, L., Raban, M. Z., Woods, A., Koyama, A. K., Baysari, M. T., … & White, L. (2021). Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: a direct observational study of paediatric inpatients. BMJ Quality & Safety, 30(4), 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011473 NUR 550 Topic 5