NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2: Demonstrate the ability to conduct a focused, evidence-based literature search that supports a proposed healthcare improvement intervention. Translate a broad patient safety issue into a PICO(T) question, systematically search and organize literature, and identify studies that directly inform your intervention.
Key Goals:
Core Competencies Assessed:
• Introduce the clinical issue or topic • Explain its relevance to nursing practice • State the purpose of the assessment
• Describe databases and search strategies used • Explain criteria for selecting credible sources • Discuss evaluation of source quality and relevance
• Summarize key findings from research sources • Compare and contrast different perspectives • Identify patterns and themes in the evidence
• Explain how research informs clinical decisions • Provide specific examples of practice applications • Discuss implications for patient outcomes
• Summarize key points and findings • Reinforce the importance of evidence-based practice • Suggest areas for future research or practice improvement
Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) pose trouble to cases’ safety at the Memorial Regional Hospital, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). The frequency rates of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSI), Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI), and other HAIs have been on the rise, resulting in advanced mortality, morbidities, and increased health care costs. Internal data from Memorial Regional Hospital reveal CLABSI and CAUTI rates of 0.553 and 0.926 per 1,000 device days, singly, in 2023, which exceed public marks (Leapfrog, 2024).
The HAIs compromise patient safety, stretch recovery, and strain sanatorium resources, requiring immediate intervention to reduce their frequency. Gaps in infection control practices, linked through staff interviews and internal data, contribute to the frequency of HAIs in ICUs. External validation substantiates the necessity for change.
Peters et al. (2022) illuminate the significance of hand hygiene, environmental cleanliness, antimicrobial stewardship, and staff education in preventing HAIs. CDC (2024) reports that one in 31 rehabilitated cases acquires an HAI annually, resulting in over 72,000 deaths. The findings stress the need for multifaceted, validation-predicated strategies to reduce HAIs and ameliorate patient safety at Memorial Regional Hospital.
In ICU cases at Memorial Regional Hospital (P), how does the performance of hand hygiene protocol (I), as compared to current practices (C), affect the rate of HAIs (O) over 12 weeks (T)?
Establishing an effective approach to developing the quest terms is vital to the chances of the most applicable validation for the PICOT question about Memorial Regional Hospital and ICU cases and the impact of a comprehensive hand hygiene protocol on the rates of HAIs. In relating the main factors of the PICOT question, ICU cases are the population of interest, and a hand hygiene protocol and antimicrobial stewardship are the interventions of choice compared to the current practice in reducing HAIs and enhancing patient safety (Akkoc et al., 2021).
PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases were used, since these are rich sources of medical, nursing, and clinical disquisition papers (Kuti et al., 2021). Such an approach guarantees access to the most applicable validation for administering analogous interventions in the ICU. The PRISMA flowchart is presented in the appendix to outline the process of study identification and addition and rejection criteria.
Opting for applicable databases and keywords is critical for conducting an effective quest to gather the swish validation on the impact of a hand hygiene protocol and antimicrobial stewardship on HAIs in ICU cases. Databases analogous to PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were employed for their extensive collections of high-quality clinical and nursing disquisitions (Kuti et al., 2021). Pivotal quest terms included “hand hygiene,” “healthcare-associated infections (HAIs),” and “infection prevention.” Boolean operators like AND, OR, and NOT optimized the quest by refining and expanding it to identify applicable studies that could guide quality improvement enterprises.
The selection criteria involved papers in English published after 2019 that compared the goods of hand hygiene and antimicrobial stewardship on HAIs in ICU case populations. The addition criteria included studies with samples of ICU cases, reported at least one of the PICOT question’s issues, analogous CLABSI and CAUTI rates, and contained validation-predicated interventions. Studies performed outside the ICU were barred, and studies with pediatric cases and those addressing other types of interventions other than hand hygiene were barred (Raoofi et al., 2023).
According to these criteria and to ensure the quality of the papers named, the authors screened and included 12 papers in the review. Only papers directly applicable to the issue were included in the review, thus proving the effectiveness of targeted interventions in abating HAIs and adding patient safety (Raoofi et al., 2023). A total of 12 studies were retained, as they handed information on the connection of interventions in ICUs, which nearly matched addressing HAIs at Memorial Regional Hospital.
Search Strategy
Leapfrog (2024). Hospital details table. Hospitalsafetygrade.org. https://www.hospitalsafetygrade.org/table-details/memorial-regional-hospital
Peters, A., Schmid, M. N., Parneix, P., Lebowitz, D., de Kraker, M., Sauser, J., Zingg, W., & Pittet, D. (2022). Impact of environmental hygiene interventions on healthcare-associated infections and patient colonization: A systematic review. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-022-01075-1
Raoofi, S., Pashazadeh Kan, F., Rafiei, S., Hosseinipalangi, Z., Noorani Mejareh, Z., Khani, S., Abdollahi, B., Seyghalani Talab, F., Sanaei, M., Zarabi, F., Dolati, Y., Ahmadi, N., Raoofi, N., Sarhadi, Y., Masoumi, M., Sadat Hosseini, B., Vali, N., Gholamali, N., Asadi, S., & Ahmadi, S. (2023). Global frequency of nosocomial infection A methodical review and meta-analysis. Public Library of Science, 18(1), e0274248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274248
| Criteria | Proficient | Distinguished / Target |
| Patient Safety Issue | Clearly identifies HAIs | Clearly identifies HAIs with ICU-specific rates, complications, and hospital context |
| PICO(T) Question | States a basic PICO(T) | Formulates a clear, focused PICO(T) question addressing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timeframe |
| Search Strategy | Lists databases and keywords | Justifies database choice, keywords, and Boolean logic; clearly aligns with PICO(T) |
| Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria | Defines some criteria | Clearly defines inclusion/exclusion criteria with rationale; excludes irrelevant or low-quality studies |
| Evidence Selection | Lists selected studies | Includes studies directly applicable to PICO(T) question; shows quality and relevance |
| PRISMA Flowchart | Simple search description | Detailed PRISMA chart showing records identified, screened, excluded, and included |
| Organization of Evidence | Summarizes studies | Organizes studies clearly; connects findings to intervention and patient population |
| Relevance to Intervention | Basic link to QI project | Directly links evidence to planned intervention (e.g., hand hygiene protocol) |
| Documentation & References | Lists sources | Proper APA formatting; includes peer-reviewed, high-quality evidence |
| Integration & Rigor | Covers main points | Demonstrates systematic, transparent, and rigorous approach to literature search and selection |
Follow these steps to complete your assessment, using the handed-out notes as your companion.
A PICO(T) question takes a broad problem (HAIs) and turns it into a specific, searchable query. It focuses your literature quest, ensuring that the validation you find is directly applicable to your proposed intervention and patient population. It’s the foundation of validation-predicated practice.
The PRISMA flowchart visually documents the process of your literature quest. It provides translucence and allows others to replicate your quest strategy. It shows that you have completely and rigorously searched for validation, which lends credibility to your findings and the conclusions you draw from them.
Assessment 1 was about erecting the case for a problem. This assessment is about changing the validation to support your proposed result for that problem. By moving from a general problem statement to a focused literature quest, you are demonstrating the first two pivotal ways of the validation-predicated practice process. You are erecting the foundation for the coming way by administering and assessing your QI design.
Instant access • No credit card
You cannot copy content of this page
Fill out the form below.