NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2: Evidence-Based Literature Search and Organization

Patient Safety Issue, PICO(T) Question, and Evidence

Hospital Acquired Infections (HAIs) pose a trouble to cases’ safety at the Memorial Regional Hospital, especially in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). The prevalence 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 reveals CLABSI and CAUTI rates of 0.553 and 0.926 per 1,000 device days, independently, in 2023, which exceed public marks (Leapfrog, 2024).

Hai’s compromises the patient’s safety, protects improvement, and confuses sanatorium coughs, which challenge immediate intervention to reduce the spread. Infection control practice is linked through intervals, employee interviews, and internal data, which contributes to the frequency of sharks in the ICU. External confirmation supports urban change. Peters et al. (2022) Apart from hand hygiene, environmental hygiene, antimicrobial steps, and sharks, the importance of the staff points out the importance of education. CDC (2024) reports that one of the 31 rehabilitation cases bought sharks annually, and they appeared in over 72,000 deaths. Conclusions emphasize the requirement for versatile, confirmation-based strategies to reduce shark attacks and ameliorate patient safety at Memorial Regional Hospital.

The PICOT Question

In ICU cases at Memorial Regional Hospital (P), how does the perpetration of hand hygiene protocol (I), as compared to current practices (C), affect the rate of HAIs (O) over 12 weeks (T)?

Best Evidence Search Strategy

Establishing an effective approach to developing the hunt terms is pivotal to changing the most applicable substantiation 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 relation to 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 exploration papers (Kuti et al., 2021). Such an approach guarantees access to the most applicable substantiation for enforcing similar interventions in the ICU. The PRISMA flowchart is presented in the excursus to outline the process of study identification and addition and rejection criteria.

Databases and Keywords

Opting for applicable databases and keywords is critical for conducting an effective hunt to gather the stylish substantiation on the impact of a hand hygiene protocol and antimicrobial stewardship on HAIs in ICU cases. Databases similar to PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were employed for their expansive collections of high-quality clinical and nursing exploration (Kuti et al., 2021). Crucial hunt terms included “hand hygiene,” “healthcare-associated infections (HAIs),” and “infection forestallment.” Boolean drivers like AND, OR, and NOT optimized the hunt by refining and expanding it to identify applicable studies that could guide quality enhancement enterprise.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

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 additional criteria included studies with samples of ICU cases, reported at least one of the PICOT question’s issues, similar CLABSI and CAUTI rates, and contained substantiation-grounded 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, therefore proving the effectiveness of targeted interventions in dwindling HAIs and adding patient safety (Raoofi et al., 2023). An aggregate of 12 studies was retained, as they handed information on the connection of interventions in ICUs, which nearly matched addressing HAIs at Memorial Regional Hospital.

NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2: Evidence-Based Literature Search and Organization

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 prevalence of nosocomial infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Library of Science, 18(1), e0274248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274248

Appendix

Identification of Studies Via Databases and Registers

Search Strategy

• Picking Databases The hunt was done by using PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases. These databases were named based on their capability to give content of biomedical and nursing literature, furnishing the latest information on hand hygiene norms and HAI prevention in the ICU.
• Original Hunt Results An aggregate of 25 records were linked across the named databases. No fresh records were set up in registers or other sources.
• Webbing Process The first 25 records were barred by reviewing the title and epitome of each record in order to estimate applicability to the PICOT question. An aggregate of 9 records were barred after the webbing due to impertinence or poor quality.
• Eligibility Criteria Only papers published after 2019 in English, peer-reviewed, and addressing at least one of the precedents, which included ICU cases, hand hygiene, or antimicrobial stewardship, were considered for addition in the review. Inquiries also had to give quantitative issues as CLABSI and CAUTI rates. The PICOT question barred studies that passed in settings other than the ICU, children, and interventions that weren’t within the compass of the question.

NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2: Evidence-Based Literature Search and Organization

• During the eligibility assessment, 2 reports were barred due to deficient data or lack of focus on the intervention.
• Studies involved included 12 studies in the reviews, which directly offer a strong confirmation related to the PICOT question. Studies assigned significant understanding to the effectiveness of hand hygiene and antimicrobial stewardship in reduced shock in ICU cases. PRISMA Flow Diagram A PRISMA inflow illustration was developed to visually represent the identification, webbing, and addition processes for the studies. The illustration reflects the records linked, screened, barred, and included throughout the review process.Discover key insights and a polished structure in our NURS FPX 8030 Assessment 2 Evidenced Based Literature sample paper.