Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Walden University Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
The introduction for the Walden University Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
After the introduction, move into the main part of the Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Sample Answer for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
This presentation will discuss my selected clinical issue of interest and describe how I developed a PICOT question focused on the clinical issue of interest. I will include the four research databases used to conduct the search for the peer-reviewed articles and the citations for the articles. Besides, I will describe the level of evidence of each peer-reviewed article. Lastly, I will discuss the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.
The clinical issue of interest is cognitive decline in mild-moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD). AD is a neurocognitive disorder characterized by progressive deterioration of cognitive function (Berg-Weger & Stewart, 2017). The decline in cognitive function results in cognitive deficits, evidenced by short-term memory, language dysfunction, poor judgment, impaired reasoning, difficulty managing complex tasks, and visuospatial dysfunction (Berg-Weger & Stewart, 2017). Pharmacological therapies available for AD helps only to slow or reverse the progression of AD but do not reverse the effects of cognitive decline. Besides, therapies previously proposed for AD have produced mostly disappointing outcomes (Berg-Weger & Stewart, 2017). Therefore, there is a major need to identify non-pharmacological approaches to improve cognitive function in the early stages of the disease before the symptoms progress.
I developed a PICOT question centered on cognitive function in AD by first identifying a population of interest. In this case, the population of interest was patients with mild to moderate AD.
The second step was to identify an intervention that would help address the issue of cognitive decline in AD. The identified intervention was cognitive training combined with drug therapy. The intervention will be compared to drug therapy alone. The next step entailed identifying a measurable outcome that will be used to determine the effectiveness of the proposed intervention. The desired outcome after cognitive training is improved cognitive function. Lastly, I set up a time frame that will be used to evaluate the intervention. The time frame for this case is six months.
The PICOT question for the clinical issue is:
In patients with mild to moderate AD (P), does cognitive training combined with drug therapy (I) compared to drug therapy alone (C) improve cognitive function (O) in six months (T)?
The PICOT question for the clinical issue is:
In patients with mild to moderate AD (P), does cognitive training combined with drug therapy (I) compared to drug therapy alone (C) improve cognitive function (O) in six months (T)?
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
The research databases used to search peer-reviewed articles on non-pharmacological interventions that can improve cognitive functioning in patients with mild-moderate AD include APA PsycInfo, BioMedCentral, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
ØThis presentation will discuss:
A clinical issue of interest- CLABSI
Developing my PICOT question
Research Databases used
Peer-reviewed articles
Strengths of Systematic Reviews
The following presentation will discuss a clinical issue of interest that I have identified. I will describe how I developed my PICOT question. In addition, I will state the databases I used to conduct my search for the peer-reviewed articles and list the articles used. Besides, I will describe the level of evidence for each
article and explain the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.
Clinical Issue of Interest
Clinical issue- Central line bloodstream infection
A lab-confirmed bloodstream infection
It affects patients with central line catheters
CDC estimate about 41,000 CLABSI annually
Contributes to: prolonged hospital stays
High patient care costs & mortality
Prevention: Aseptic techniques, surveillance, & management
Central line bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is my chosen clinical issue of interest. It is a laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection not associated with an infection at another site, which occurs within 48 hours of a central line placement (Bell & O’Grady, 2017). CLABSI affects hospitalized patients with central line catheters. It occurs when microorganisms enter a patient’s central line and then into their bloodstream.
CLASI is an issue of interest since the CDC estimates that about 41,000 bloodstream infections are caused by contaminated central lines in U.S. hospitals annually (Bell & O’Grady, 2017). Besides, it contributed to prolonged hospital stays and increased patient care costs and mortality. Nevertheless, most CLABSI cases can be prevented through appropriate aseptic techniques, surveillance, and management interventions (Bell & O’Grady, 2017). The CDC and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have developed CLABSI prevention guidelines during central line insertion and maintenance.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
PICO
In hospitalized patients with central lines, does daily chlorhexidine baths compared with daily bath with regular soap and water decrease the incidence of CLABSI infections during the hospital stay?
Developing the PICO Question
Identified population of interest- patients with central line
Researched for an EBI from peer-reviewed articles
Intervention- use of daily chlorhexidine baths
Comparison intervention- bath with regular soap and water
Indentified outcome- decreasing CLABSI infections
Research Databases
ØDatabases used include:
PubMed
MEDLINE
Cochrane Library
CINAHL plus
I used several research databases to search peer-reviewed articles on interventions effective in addressing CLABSI among hospitalized patients. The databases include:
PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL Plus.
Peer-Reviewed Articles
Musuuza, J. S., Guru, P. K., O’Horo, J. C., Bongiorno, C. M., Korobkin, M. A., Gangnon, R. E., & Safdar, N. (2019). The impact of chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC infectious diseases, 19(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4002-7
Reyes, D. C. V., Bloomer, M., & Morphet, J. (2017). Prevention of central venous line-associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units: a systematic review. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 43, 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2017.05.006
Reynolds, S. S., Woltz, P., Keating, E., Neff, J., Elliott, J., Hatch, D., … & Granger, B. B. (2021). Results of the Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing implementation intervention to improve evidence-based nursing practices for prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections Study (Changing Baths): a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial. Implementation Science, 16(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01112-4
Scheier, T., Saleschus, D., Dunic, M., Fröhlich, M. R., Schüpbach, R., Falk, C., … & Schreiber, P. W. (2021). Implementation of daily chlorhexidine bathing in intensive care units for reduction of central line-associated bloodstream infections. Journal of Hospital Infection, 110, 26-32.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Sample Answer 2 for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
Levels of Evidence
Musuuza et al. (2019)- Level I evidence
Reyes et al. (2017)- Level I evidence
Reynolds et al. (2021)- Level II evidence
Scheier et al. (2021)- Level III evidence
Musuuza et al. (2019) is a level I evidence article. It employs a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, cluster-randomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies.
Reyes et al. (2017) is a level I evidence. It conducted a systematic review of Randomized controlled trials and observational studies.
Reynolds et al. (2021) is a level II evidence article since it uses evidence from a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.
Scheier et al. (2021) is a level III evidence article since it uses evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials but without randomization.
Strengths of Using Systematic Reviews for Clinical Research
Minimizes bias- reliable & accurate conclusions
Information is easier for the reader to understand
Produce reliable estimates on interventions’ impact
Disclose where knowledge is lacking
Save time for research discoveries & implementation
Increase generalizability & consistency of outcomes
Systematic reviews concentrate on a specific clinical question and carry out an extensive literature search to discover studies with sound methodology (Møller et al., 2018).
Advantages of using systematic reviews in clinical research include:
1.The method employed to find and select the studies minimizes bias and thus highly likely to lead to reliable and accurate conclusions (Møller et al., 2018).
2.Systematic reviews sum up findings from multiple studies, making the information easier for the reader to understand.
3.They abide by a strict scientific design founded on explicit, pre-specified, and reproducible methods. Consequently, they produce reliable estimates about the impact of interventions to make defensible conclusions (Møller et al., 2018).
4.They disclose where knowledge is lacking, which guides future clinical research.
5.They save time used in research discoveries and implementation (Møller et al., 2018).
6.Systematic reviews also increase the generalizability and consistency of outcomes.
References
Bell, T., & O’Grady, N. P. (2017). Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections. Infectious disease clinics of North America, 31(3), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2017.05.007
Møller, M. H., Ioannidis, J. P., & Darmon, M. (2018). Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure. Intensive Care Medicine, 44(4), 518-520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-5039-y
Sample Answer 3 for Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic Reviews
Clinical interest to form a PICOT is hand hygiene to prevent infection in health care setting and at home. Hand hygiene form the basis of all infections that occur. Hand hygiene is the single most important strategy for preventing and reducing the spread of microorganisms. (Gammon & Hunt 2020). After hand washing, drying is also crucial. This is whereby some of the microorganisms are wiped off. Also, the microbes may enter through skin which is not intact when the hands are wet. Health care related infection have the greatest impact in morbidity and mortality rate in the community. (Sousa et al 2017). Safe practice prevents the spread of infection from one person to another. The infection can be spread from health care workers to patients and among the health care. Doctors contribute the highest number of infections transmitted from one patient to another. This is whereby they use one equipment many patients without cleaning it. For example, covid was spread rapidly because of poor hand hygiene.
When searching for articles that meet the criteria, it may be trick and cumbersome. The system needs specific words to bring out the required article. On the issue of had hygiene, I had to use specific words to be able to get relevant material. If you use general term, the articles that come up may be too many and you may not be able to get what you want.
Infection to occur, it must be a complete chain. The best way to prevent it is by breaking the chain. Example hand hygiene is one of the best ways to break it. It may look simple and easy but may be the greatest course of many diseases.
PICOT Question
P represent the problem that we are discussing. In this case P is the issue of infection. Under this we are going to look at what causes the problem of infection and what population that is affected. “I”, this is whereby we identify way to prevent the issue of infection. this is where we found out that hand washing is the major ways to prevent infection from spreading. If followed we, the chain is broken. Therefore, infection if prevented from happening. “C” this is whereby we do comparison of hand washing with other option. For example, what will happen if no handwashing is done or what if someone uses hand sanitizer and wearing mask to prevent the spread of microbes. Finally, “T” this is the time it takes to spread the microbes and time to achieve the outcome of hand washing.
References
Sousa, A, el at (2017). Prevention and control of infection in professional nursing training: a descriptive study. Online braz j nurs [internet] 2017 Jun [cited year month day]; 16 (2):199-208. Available from: http://www.objnursing.uff.br/index.php/nursing/article/view/5560
Gammon, J &Hunt, J (2020). COVID-19 and hand hygiene: the vital importance of hand drying. British Journal of Nursing (BR J NURS), 9/24/2020; 29(17): 1003-1006. (4p)
CDC(n.d). Lesson 1: Introduction to Epidemiology. Section 10: Chain of Infection.https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section10.html
Srigley, J.A., C.D. Furness, and M. Gardam. (2016). Interventions to improve patient hand hygiene: a systematic review. Journal of Hospital Infection 94(1): 23-29.