NR449 Evidence Based Practice Matrix Table RUA Analyzing Pub ✓ Solved

NR449 Evidence-Based Practice Matrix Table RUA: Analyzing Published Research Evidence Matrix Table Article References Purpose Hypothesis Study Question(s) Study Variables Study Design Sample Size & Selection Data Collection Methods Major Finding(s) 1. Carling, P. C., O’Hara, L. M., Harris, A. D., & Olmsted, R. (2023).

Mitigating hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile: The impact of an optimized environmental hygiene program in eight hospitals. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 44(3), 440–446. Mitigating hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile: The impact of an optimized environmental hygiene program in eight hospitals - Chamberlain University Purpose: To evaluate the effects of an optimized hospital-wide environmental hygiene program using daily sporicidal disinfectant cleaning on hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) standardized infection ratios (SIRs). Hypothesis: Implementing standardized, validated daily sporicidal patient-zone cleaning and optimizing thoroughness of disinfection cleaning (TDC) would lead to a sustained reduction in HO-CDI rates.

Study Question: Does a standardized environmental hygiene intervention decrease HO-CDI SIRs across multiple hospitals compared to control hospitals that do not implement the program? Independent Variable: Environmental hygiene intervention involving daily sporicidal disinfectant cleaning and performance-feedback optimization of cleaning thoroughness. Dependent Variable: Hospital-onset C. difficile infection standardized infection ratios (HO-CDI SIRs) and thoroughness of disinfection cleaning (TDC). Multi-site quasi-experimental study with control hospitals and a nonequivalent dependent variable. Eight acute-care hospitals located in six U.S. states with stable endemic HO-CDI rates during the 18-month pre-intervention period.

HO-CDI SIRs were measured quarterly using NHSN surveillance data. Thoroughness of cleaning was monitored prospectively using validated fluorescent marker assessments. Difference-in-differences analysis measured changes relative to control hospitals. After implementation and optimization of cleaning quality, TDC increased to 93.6% across sites. HO-CDI SIR decreased from 1.03 to 0.6 (P = .009).

Adjusted difference-in-differences showed a 0.55 absolute reduction in HO-CDI SIR (P < .001), representing a 50% relative decrease compared to controls. The environmental hygiene intervention produced sustained reductions in HO-CDI. 2. Durant, D. J., Willis, L., & Duvall, S. (2020).

Adoption of electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems in New York State hospitals and the associated impact on hospital-acquired C. difficile infection rates. American Journal of Infection Control, 48 (7), 733–739. Purpose: To explore the adoption of electronic HH monitoring systems (EHHMS) in New York State hospitals and assess their impact on C. difficile infection rates. Hypothesis: Adoption of EHHMS improves HH compliance and decreases hospital-acquired C. difficile infections (HA-CDI). Study Question: How does the adoption of EHHMS affect HH compliance and HA-CDI rates among New York State hospitals?

Independent Variable: Adoption of EHHMS. Dependent Variables: HH compliance rates and HA-CDI rates. Confounding Variable: Organizational HH culture. Mixed-method study combining quantitative trend analysis and qualitative interviews 56 acute care hospitals (30% of total hospitals in New York State). Convenience sample based on survey participation.

Data collected through hospital surveys, trend analysis of HA-CDI rates, and interviews with infection prevention teams. EHHMS adoption was low (2/56 hospitals). Hospitals with EHHMS showed 20–30% increase in HH compliance and up to 70% decrease in HA-CDI rates initially, but improvements were not sustained. Strong HH culture was identified as critical for long-term compliance and infection reduction. 3.

4. 5. 6. NR449_Matrix_Table_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_JUL24 © 2024 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved 1 image1.png NR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Guidelines NR449_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_JUL24 © 2024 Chamberlain University.

All Rights Reserved 1 Purpose The purpose of this paper is to interpret the two articles identified as most important to the group topic. Course outcomes: This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes. 1. Apply research principles to the interpretation of the content of published research studies. (POs 4 and . Evaluate published nursing research for credibility and clinical significance related to evidence -based practice. (POs 4 and 8) Due date: Your faculty member will inform you when this assignment is due.

The Late Assignment Policy applies to this assignment. Total points possible: 120 points Preparing the assignment 1. Follow these guidelines when completing this assignment. Speak with your faculty member if you have questions. 2.

Please make sure you do not duplicate articles within your group. 3. The paper will include the following: a. Clinical Question (10 points/8%) 1. Describe the problem: What is the focus of your group’s work?

2. Significance of problem: What health outcomes result from your problem? Or what statistics document this is a problem? You may find support on websites for government or professional organizations. 3.

Purpose of the paper: What will your paper do or describe? ***Please note that although most of these questions are the same as you addressed in paper 1, the purpose of this paper is different. You can use your paper 1 for items 1 & 2 above, including any faculty suggestions for improvement provided as feedback. b. Use Evidence Matrix Table Template: Data Summary - (50 points/42%) Categorize items in the Evidence Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. 1. References (recent publication within the last 5 years) 2.

Purpose/Hypothesis/Study Question(s) 3. Study Variables 4. Study Design 5. Sample Size and Selection 6. Data Collection Methods 7.

Major Findings (Evidence) c. Description of Findings (50 points/42%) Describe the data in the Evidence Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. 1. Compare and contrast variables within each study. 2.

What are the study design and procedures used in each study; qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method study, levels of confidence in each study, etc.? 3. Participant demographics and information. 4. Instruments used, including reliability and validity.

5. How do the research findings provide evidence to support your clinical problem, or what further evidence is needed to answer your question? 6. Next steps: Identify two questions that can help guide the group’s work. d. Conclusion (5 points/4%) Review major findings in a summary paragraph.

1. Evidence to address your clinical problem. 2. Make a connection back to all the included sections. NR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Guidelines NR449_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_JUL24 © 2024 Chamberlain University.

All Rights Reserved . Wrap up the assignment and give the reader something to think about. e. APA Format (5 points/4%) 1. Correct grammar and spelling 2. Include a title and reference page 3.

Use of headings for each section: o Problem o Synthesis of the Literature − Variables − Methods − Participants − Instruments − Implications for Future Work 4. Conclusion 5. Adheres to current APA formatting and guidelines 6. Include at least two (2) scholarly, current (within 5 years) primary sources other than the textbook 7. 3-4 pages in length, excluding appendices, title, and reference pages For writing assistance, visit the Writing Center.

Please note that your instructor may provide you with additional assessments in any form to determine that you fully understand the concepts learned. NR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Guidelines NR449_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_JUL24 © 2024 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved 3 Grading Rubric Criteria are met when the student’s application of knowledge demonstrates achievement of the outcomes for this assignment. Assignment Section and Required Criteria (Points possible/% of total points available) Highest Level of Performance High Level of Performance Satisfactory Level of Performance Unsatisfactory Level of Performance Section not present in paper Clinical Question (10 points/8%) 10 points 9 points 8 points 3 points 0 points Required criteria 1.

Describe the problem: What is the focus of your group’s work? 2. Significance of problem: What health outcomes result from your problem? Or what statistics document this is a problem? You may find support on websites for government or professional organizations.

3. Purpose of the paper: What will your paper do or describe? Includes 3 requirements for section. Includes 2 requirements for section. Includes 1 requirement for section.

Present, yet includes no required criteria. No requirements for this section presented. Evidence Matrix Table: Data Summary (Appendix A) (50 points/42%) 50 points 43 points 38 points 19 points 0 points Required criteria Categorize items in the Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. 1. References (recent publication within the last 5 years) 2.

Purpose/Hypothesis/Study Question(s) 3. Study Variables 4. Study Design 5. Sample Size and Selection 6. Data Collection Methods 7.

Major Findings (Evidence) Includes 7 requirements for section. Includes 6 requirements for section. Includes 5 requirements for section. Includes 4 or less requirements for section. No requirements for this section presented.

Description of Findings (50 points/42%) 50 points 43 points 38 points 19 points 0 points Required criteria Describe the data in the Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. 1. Compare and contrast variables within each study. 2. What are the study design and procedures used in each study; qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method study, levels of confidence in each study, etc.?

3. Participant demographics and information. Includes 6 requirements for section. Includes 5 requirements for section. Includes 4 requirements for section.

Includes 3 or less requirements for section. No requirements for this section presented. NR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Guidelines NR449_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_JUL24 © 2024 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved 4 Assignment Section and Required Criteria (Points possible/% of total points available) Highest Level of Performance High Level of Performance Satisfactory Level of Performance Unsatisfactory Level of Performance Section not present in paper 4. Instruments used, including reliability and validity.

5. How do the research findings provide evidence to support your clinical problem, or what further evidence is needed to answer your question? 6. Next steps: Identify two questions that can help guide the group’s work. Conclusion (5 points/4%) 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 0 points Required criteria Review major findings in a summary paragraph.

1. Evidence to address your clinical problem. 2. Make a connection back to all the included sections. 3.

Wrap up the assignment and give the reader something to think about. Includes 3 requirements for section. Includes 2 requirements for section. Includes 1 requirement for section. Present, yet includes no required criteria.

No requirements for this section presented. APA Format (5 points/4%) 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 0 points Required criteria 1. Correct grammar and spelling 2. Include a title and reference page 3. Use of headings for each section: o Problem o Synthesis of the Literature â–ª Variables â–ª Methods â–ª Participants â–ª Instruments â–ª Implications for Future Work 4.

Conclusion 5. Adheres to current APA formatting and guidelines 6. Includes at least two (2) scholarly, current (within 5 years) primary sources other than the textbook 7. 3-4 pages in length excluding appendices, title, and reference pages Includes 7 requirements for section. Includes 6 requirements for section.

Includes 5 requirements for section. Includes 4 or less requirements for section. No requirements for this section presented. Total Points Possible = 120 points NR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Guidelines NR449_RUA_Analyzing_Published_Research_JUL24 © 2024 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved 5 Appendix A EVIDENCE MATRIX TABLE Article References Purpose Hypothesis Study Question(s) Study Variables Study Design Sample Size & Selection Data Collection Methods Major Finding(s) 1 Smith, L. (2013).

What How do educational support D-Dietary Quantitative N- 18 Focus Groups Support and education (SAMPLE should I eat? A focus for groups effect dietary modifications modifications Convenience improved compliance with ARTICLE) those living with diabetes. in patients with diabetes? I-Education sample-selected dietary modifications. Journal of Nursing from local support Education, 1(4), . group in Pittsburgh, PA RUA Week 5: Analyzing Published Research Your Name (without credentials) Chamberlain University College of Nursing Course Number: Course Name Name of Instructor Assignment Due Date RUA Week 5: Analyzing Published Research Type a brief introduction to the paper. Although the first paragraph after the paper title is the introduction, no heading labeled “Introduction†is used.

This is a great place to utilize a scholarly resource, to emphasize why the topic is important. Problem This section will discuss your Clinical Question. Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section so that all requirements are included. Describe the problem and focus of the group's work. Discuss significance of the problem, health outcomes that result from your problem, and what statistics show this is a problem.

Include the Group PICOT question to clarify the focus of the paper. What is the purpose of the paper? (This is similar to the same section in the first RUA. Tweak that information based on feedback.) (Data Summary: Evidence Matrix TABLE: This is best placed at the end of the paper as an appendix. IT must be included. IT is required.) Synthesis of the Literature In this section discuss findings.

Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section. Expand on the information placed in the matrix table. Cite your studies throughout, and any other sources used. Variables In this section you will discuss variables. You listed them on the table.

NOW compare and contrast them within each study. Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section. CITE your studies and all sources. DO NOT use “study oneâ€, study titles, journal titles etc. Use APA citations (author last name and date) Methods In this section you will compare and contrast methods of the two studies.

What were the study designs and procedures for each study? Include confidence levels. Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section. Participants In this section you will describe participants. What did the sample look like?

What were the demographics of the sample (gender, age, education level, ethnicity, experience, etc.). There is usually a table in the study that identifies this information. Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section. Instruments In this section you will discuss instruments. Identify instruments used to collect data in both studies.

Were they established tools or did the authors develop them. Validity and reliability of each tool should be described. (IT is not sufficient to say “various tools were used†or “all tools were valid and reliable). Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section. Implications for Future Work Discuss how the findings from the studies provide evidence to answer your group’s question. What else is needed to answer the question.

For next steps identify two questions that can help guide the group’s work. Be sure to reference the rubric criteria when writing this section. Conclusion Papers should end with a conclusion or summary. Do not start this section “In conclusion...†It’s already labeled that way. It should be concise and contain no new information.

What evidence do you have to address your group question? Make a connection back to summarize included sections. Leave the reader wanting to read more. No matter how much space remains on the page, the references always start on a separate page (insert a page break after the conclusion so that the references will start on a new page). References Type your reference here using hanging indent and double line spacing (under “Paragraph†on the Home toolbar ribbon).

References in alphabetical order. See your APA Manual and the resources in the APA section of Resources for reference formatting. Appendix A Evidence Matrix Table Article References Purpose Hypothesis Study Question(s) Study Variables Study Design Sample Size & Selection Data Collection Methods Major Finding(s) 1 (SAMPLE ARTICLE) Smith, L. (2013). What should I eat? A focus for those living with diabetes.

Journal of Nursing Education, . How do educational support groups effect dietary modifications in patients with diabetes? D-Dietary modifications I-Education Qualitative N- 18 Convenience sample-selected from local support group in Pittsburgh, PA Focus Groups Support and education improved compliance with dietary modifications.

Paper for above instructions

This paper analyzes two peer‑reviewed research articles related to infection prevention, specifically focused on Clostridioides difficile reduction and hand hygiene compliance enhancement. The goal is to synthesize research findings, compare variables, methods, instruments, and implications, and connect results to the broader clinical question regarding environmental hygiene, hand hygiene, and the reduction of hospital-acquired infections. The clinical problem addressed concerns the persistently high burden of hospital-onset C. difficile infection rates across many healthcare systems in the United States, which cause significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. National surveillance indicates that more than 223,900 C. difficile cases occur annually in hospitalized patients, contributing to approximately 12,800 deaths. These statistics highlight the urgent need for improved environmental infection control practices and standardization of hygiene procedures. The purpose of this paper is to interpret research presented by Carling et al. (2023) and Durant et al. (2020), assess methodological rigor, compare results, and determine how these studies inform evidence-based practice for reducing HO-CDI and improving hand hygiene behavior among healthcare professionals. The first article by Carling et al. (2023) evaluates the impact of an optimized environmental hygiene program on hospital-onset C. difficile infections across eight hospitals in the United States. The study hypothesizes that validated, daily sporicidal cleaning and enhanced cleaning thoroughness through feedback mechanisms would reduce HO-CDI standardized infection ratios. In contrast, Durant et al. (2020) explores how the adoption of electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems influences hand hygiene compliance and subsequent C. difficile infection rates in New York State hospitals. Their hypothesis suggests that real-time hand hygiene monitoring may lead to improved compliance and decreased HA-CDI rates. A major point of comparison involves study variables. Carling et al. focus on environmental cleaning thoroughness and C. difficile infection reduction as dependent variables, with the independent variable being the intervention-based environmental cleaning program. Durant et al., however, evaluate hand hygiene compliance as the dependent variable and EHHMS adoption as the independent variable. Both studies address CDI outcomes, but one emphasizes environmental disinfection practices, whereas the other addresses behavioral compliance. This contrast demonstrates how multifactorial infection prevention strategies must be, requiring simultaneous focus on environmental contamination and human behavior. Study methods also differ significantly. Carling et al. utilize a multi-site quasi-experimental design analyzing pre- and post-intervention CDI rates with difference-in-differences comparisons against matched control hospitals. This design offers a strong level of confidence, given its multi-site nature, rigorous quantitative measurement, and longitudinal follow-up. Durant et al. employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative trend data with qualitative interviews. Their design offers rich insights into organizational behavior and barriers to technological adoption, though with lower experimental rigor compared to Carling et al.’s quantitative approach. Durant’s small adoption rate (only 2 of 56 hospitals utilizing EHHMS) limits generalizability but offers important contextual information about organizational culture, leadership support, and resource allocation. Participant samples also differ. Carling et al. include eight hospitals across six states, capturing diverse demographics, facility structures, and patient populations. Durant et al. survey 56 hospitals across New York State, with qualitative interviews providing deeper insight into institutional differences. While Carling’s sample is focused on outcome metrics, Durant’s sample is concerned with organizational adoption patterns rather than specific patient-level outcomes. Instrument comparison reflects distinct focuses. Carling et al. used NHSN-reported CDI data and fluorescent marker systems to evaluate thoroughness of disinfection cleaning, both of which are validated and widely used tools. Durant et al. used hospital-reported HH compliance data, EHHMS technologies, and semi-structured interview protocols. Reliability is stronger in Carling’s validated measurement systems, whereas Durant’s self-reported compliance data may be more vulnerable to reporting bias, a major limitation acknowledged by the authors. Both studies provide strong evidence supporting environmental hygiene and hand hygiene improvement efforts as key strategies in reducing CDI transmission. Carling et al.’s findings show a 50% relative reduction in HO-CDI following intervention implementation, demonstrating the effectiveness of standardized cleaning protocols. Durant et al.’s findings highlight that while EHHMS adoption can yield significant early gains, long-term success requires strong organizational culture, leadership support, and reinforcement structures. These findings support the idea that technology alone is insufficient without sustained behavioral commitment. Two questions emerge for guiding future group work: (1) How can environmental hygiene improvements and hand hygiene technologies be integrated into a single comprehensive infection prevention program? (2) What strategies support long-term compliance and cultural reinforcement beyond initial adoption phases? In conclusion, the reviewed research studies demonstrate strong evidence that environmental hygiene optimization and enhanced hand hygiene monitoring can significantly reduce hospital-acquired C. difficile infections. Carling et al. provide robust quantitative support for standardized cleaning using sporicidal disinfectants, while Durant et al. illustrate the behavioral and cultural complexities of hand hygiene improvement. Together, these studies highlight the multifaceted nature of infection prevention and support ongoing development of integrated, evidence-based practices. The findings reinforce the importance of environmental and behavioral controls in decreasing CDI rates, offering actionable insights for clinical practice, administrative decision-making, and future research efforts. Healthcare teams must continue prioritizing environmental cleaning, monitoring systems, and organizational culture to reduce CDI and improve patient safety outcomes. This paper analyzes two peer‑reviewed research articles related to infection prevention, specifically focused on Clostridioides difficile reduction and hand hygiene compliance enhancement. The goal is to synthesize research findings, compare variables, methods, instruments, and implications, and connect results to the broader clinical question regarding environmental hygiene, hand hygiene, and the reduction of hospital-acquired infections. The clinical problem addressed concerns the persistently high burden of hospital-onset C. difficile infection rates across many healthcare systems in the United States, which cause significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. National surveillance indicates that more than 223,900 C. difficile cases occur annually in hospitalized patients, contributing to approximately 12,800 deaths. These statistics highlight the urgent need for improved environmental infection control practices and standardization of hygiene procedures. The purpose of this paper is to interpret research presented by Carling et al. (2023) and Durant et al. (2020), assess methodological rigor, compare results, and determine how these studies inform evidence-based practice for reducing HO-CDI and improving hand hygiene behavior among healthcare professionals. The first article by Carling et al. (2023) evaluates the impact of an optimized environmental hygiene program on hospital-onset C. difficile infections across eight hospitals in the United States. The study hypothesizes that validated, daily sporicidal cleaning and enhanced cleaning thoroughness through feedback mechanisms would reduce HO-CDI standardized infection ratios. In contrast, Durant et al. (2020) explores how the adoption of electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems influences hand hygiene compliance and subsequent C. difficile infection rates in New York State hospitals. Their hypothesis suggests that real-time hand hygiene monitoring may lead to improved compliance and decreased HA-CDI rates. A major point of comparison involves study variables. Carling et al. focus on environmental cleaning thoroughness and C. difficile infection reduction as dependent variables, with the independent variable being the intervention-based environmental cleaning program. Durant et al., however, evaluate hand hygiene compliance as the dependent variable and EHHMS adoption as the independent variable. Both studies address CDI outcomes, but one emphasizes environmental disinfection practices, whereas the other addresses behavioral compliance. This contrast demonstrates how multifactorial infection prevention strategies must be, requiring simultaneous focus on environmental contamination and human behavior. Study methods also differ significantly. Carling et al. utilize a multi-site quasi-experimental design analyzing pre- and post-intervention CDI rates with difference-in-differences comparisons against matched control hospitals. This design offers a strong level of confidence, given its multi-site nature, rigorous quantitative measurement, and longitudinal follow-up. Durant et al. employ a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative trend data with qualitative interviews. Their design offers rich insights into organizational behavior and barriers to technological adoption, though with lower experimental rigor compared to Carling et al.’s quantitative approach. Durant’s small adoption rate (only 2 of 56 hospitals utilizing EHHMS) limits generalizability but offers important contextual information about organizational culture, leadership support, and resource allocation. Participant samples also differ. Carling et al. include eight hospitals across six states, capturing diverse demographics, facility structures, and patient populations. Durant et al. survey 56 hospitals across New York State, with qualitative interviews providing deeper insight into institutional differences. While Carling’s sample is focused on outcome metrics, Durant’s sample is concerned with organizational adoption patterns rather than specific patient-level outcomes. Instrument comparison reflects distinct focuses. Carling et al. used NHSN-reported CDI data and fluorescent marker systems to evaluate thoroughness of disinfection cleaning, both of which are validated and widely used tools. Durant et al. used hospital-reported HH compliance data, EHHMS technologies, and semi-structured interview protocols. Reliability is stronger in Carling’s validated measurement systems, whereas Durant’s self-reported compliance data may be more vulnerable to reporting bias, a major limitation acknowledged by the authors. Both studies provide strong evidence supporting environmental hygiene and hand hygiene improvement efforts as key strategies in reducing CDI transmission. Carling et al.’s findings show a 50% relative reduction in HO-CDI following intervention implementation, demonstrating the effectiveness of standardized cleaning protocols. Durant et al.’s findings highlight that while EHHMS adoption can yield significant early gains, long-term success requires strong organizational culture, leadership support, and reinforcement structures. These findings support the idea that technology alone is insufficient without sustained behavioral commitment. Two questions emerge for guiding future group work: (1) How can environmental hygiene improvements and hand hygiene technologies be integrated into a single comprehensive infection prevention program? (2) What strategies support long-term compliance and cultural reinforcement beyond initial adoption phases? In conclusion, the reviewed research studies demonstrate strong evidence that environmental hygiene optimization and enhanced hand hygiene monitoring can significantly reduce hospital-acquired C. difficile infections. Carling et al. provide robust quantitative support for standardized cleaning using sporicidal disinfectants, while Durant et al. illustrate the behavioral and cultural complexities of hand hygiene improvement. Together, these studies highlight the multifaceted nature of infection prevention and support ongoing development of integrated, evidence-based practices. The findings reinforce the importance of environmental and behavioral controls in decreasing CDI rates, offering actionable insights for clinical practice, administrative decision-making, and future research efforts. Healthcare teams must continue prioritizing environmental cleaning, monitoring systems, and organizational culture to reduce CDI and improve patient safety outcomes.