NUR 550 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature ReviewNUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based

NUR 550 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

NUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review Description:

The purpose of this assignment is to write a review of the research articles you evaluated in your Topic 5
“Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature” assignment. If you have been directed by your instructor to select different articles in order to meet the requirements for a literature review or to better support your evidence-based practice project proposal, complete this step prior to writing your review.

A literature review provides a concise comparison of the literature for the reader and explains how the research demonstrates support for your PICOT. You will use the literature review in this assignment in NUR-590, during which you will write a final paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

In a paper of 1,250-1,500, select eight of the ten articles you evaluated that demonstrate clear support for your evidence-based practice and complete the following for each article:

1. Introduction – Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing. Present your PICOT statement.
2. Search methods – Describe your search strategy and the criteria that you used in choosing and searching for your articles.
3. Synthesis of the literature – For each article, write a paragraph discussing the main components (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how the article supports your PICOT.
4. Comparison of articles – Compare the articles (similarities and differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, controversies).
5. Suggestions for future research: Based on your analysis of the literature, discuss identified gaps and which areas require further research.
6. Conclusion – Provide a summary statement of what you found in the literature.

Complete the “APA Writing Checklist” to ensure that your paper adheres to APA style and formatting criteria and general guidelines for academic writing. Include the completed checklist as an appendix at the end of your paper.

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

You are required to cite eight peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Also Read:

NUR 550 Topic 8: Using Research to Support Health Policy, Advocacy, and Policy Development

NUR 550 Topic 3 Translational Research Framework and Legal and Ethical Considerations

NUR 550 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

• MBA-MSN; MSN-Nursing Education; MSN Acute Care Nurse Practitioner-Adult-Gerontology; MSN Family Nurse Practitioner; MSN-Health Informatics; MSN-Health Care Quality and Patient Safety; MSN-Leadership in Health Care Systems; MSN-Public Health Nursing

3.2: Analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

Course Code: NUR 550

Class Code: NUR 550-O503

Assignment Title: NUR 550 Benchmark Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review Benchmark Information

Total Points:  175.0

Criteria

Percentage

• Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
• Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%)
• Satisfactory (88.00%) Good (92.00%)
• Excellent (100.00%)

Content 70.0%

Introduction 5.0%

• The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are omitted.
• The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are incomplete or incorrect.
• The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are presented. Some aspects are vague. There are minor inaccuracies.
• The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are adequately described.
• The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are thoroughly described.

Search Methods 10.0%

• The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are omitted.
• The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are only partially described. The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are summarized. More information is needed.
• The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are described. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
• The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles is thoroughly described.

Synthesis of Literature 10.0%

• A paragraph for one or more article is missing. All articles are presented, but the synthesis of literature is incomplete.
• A summary for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are generally discussed. General rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is provided. More information is needed.
• A paragraph for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are adequately discussed, and rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is provided. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
• A well-developed paragraph for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are thoroughly discussed, and substantial rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is clearly provided.

Comparison of Articles 10.0%

• One or more article is missing in the comparison. All articles are presented, but the comparison is incomplete.
• A general comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is presented. Some aspects are unclear. More information is needed.
• A comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is adequately presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.
• A detailed comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is thoroughly presented.

Suggestions for Future Research 10.0%

• Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are omitted.
• Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are only partially presented. Some identified gaps and areas requiring further research are generally discussed.
• The narrative is generally based on the analysis of the literature. More information is needed. Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are adequately discussed.
• The narrative is based on the analysis of the literature. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy. Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are thoroughly discussed and clearly based on the analysis of the literature.
• The narrative is insightful and demonstrates an understanding of research analysis necessary for future study.

Conclusion 5.0%

• The conclusion is omitted. A conclusion is presented but fails to present a summary statement of what was found in the literature.
• The conclusion presents a vague summary statement of was found in the literature. There are inaccuracies.
• he conclusion presents an adequate summary statement of what was found in the literature.
• The conclusion is well-developed and presents a clear and accurate summary statement of what was found in the literature.

Ability to Analyze (C3.2) 10.0%

• The literature review presented does not demonstrate an ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.
• The literature review presented does not consistently demonstrate an ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.
• The literature review presented demonstrates a general ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.
• The literature review presented demonstrates an adequate ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.
• The literature review presented demonstrates a strong ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

Appendix 5.0%

• The appendix and required resources are omitted.
• The APA Writing Checklist is attached, but an appendix has not been created.
• The paper does not reflect the use of the APA Writing Checklist during development The APA Writing Checklist is attached and in the appendix.
• The APA Writing Checklist was generally used in development of the paper, but some aspects are inconsistent with the paper format or quality.
• The APA Writing Checklist is attached in the appendix. It is apparent that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development of the paper.
• The APA Writing Checklist is attached in the appendix. It is clearly evident by the quality of the paper that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development.

Required Sources 5.0%

• Sources are not included. Number of required sources is only partially met.
• Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.
• Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
• Number of required resources is met. Sources are current and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%

Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0%

• Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
• Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
• Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
• Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper.
• Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
• Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper.
• Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction 8.0%

• Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.
• Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.
• Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies.
• The argument presents minimal justification of claims.
• Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible.
• Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.
• Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.
• Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0%

• Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Format 10.0%

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0%

• Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
• Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
• Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
• Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0%

• Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
• Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
• Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
• Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

NUR550 Topic 7 Benchmark – Evidence-Based Practice Project: Literature Review Example 

The Topic of interest is medication administration errors in critical care. Nurses must often make medication administration errors. Medication errors can occur anywhere between prescription and administration, and healthcare professionals strive to provide development that minimizes these errors. Medication administration constitutes the largest source of medication errors. During medication administration, nurses must confirm the five rights of medications before administering medications.

The process requires knowing the patient, their condition, and the medications to detect mistakes. The medication administration process also filters mistakes made in the previous stages of medication administration. Barcode medication administration is a healthcare technology allowing nurses to administer medications safely. The technology requires nurses to scan medications against the patient’s wristband and to confirm these medications before they are administered quickly.

The wristbands are vital in critical care because patients may not respond to nurses’ questions or participate in care delivery like in other units. IV medications are the most significant culprits of severe medication error consequences, and barcode medication administration eliminates any errors. The technology ensures all the five rights of medication administration and thus helps reduce errors. Studies show that the technology reduces medication administration errors by above 80% (Thompson et al., 2018). This paper analyzes the concept of barcode medication administration and its impact on medication administration errors, patient safety, and healthcare professionals

Search Strategy

When searching for the articles used in the literature review, I used large and reputable databases such as Medline, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and Google scholar. I also used reputable journals, such as The Journal of Translational Research, dealing with translational research. The search strategy included keywords such as barcode medication administration, attitude towards barcode medication administration, the effectiveness of barcode medication administration, medication administration technologies, and medication error prevention. The keywords and convenience of searching by limiting the years to 2018- 2022 helped ensure the articles with the required content were within the required years. During the search, the primary goal was to locate valuable articles that could provide the desired information on barcode medication administration.

Literature Evaluation

Rishoej et al. (2018) evaluated the various effective interventions in neonatal intensive care units to prevent medication errors. The qualitative study assessed the medication error prevention strategies employed in these units. Exploration of these practices will help nurses and other healthcare professionals replicate these strategies in similar environments and units to prevent medication errors. Among the technologies, sed includes barcode medication administration, CPOE, and CDSS systems. BCMA is the least utilized yet effective technology in healthcare institutions. The study also shows that the technology is accepted in intensive care units, meaning its implementation will face little resistance from the staff. Double-checking technologies such as BCMA are vital in reducing errors in healthcare institutions, and some of the technologies with great.

Greenberg et al. (2018) conducted a study on implementing approved/recommended safe practices in medication administration across an extensive interconnected network of United States neonatal intensive care units (300 units) managed by the Pediatric Medical Group Inc. The study. The technologies featured include CPOEs, CDSS, and BCMA. BCMA receives the least utilization despite its potential to improve medication administration safety.

Lunt and Mathiesen (2020) studied nurses’ attitudes toward barcode medication administration in the emergency department. The emergency department requires urgency in activities and reports the highest medication administration errors in healthcare institutions. The study used 55 members of national emergency nurses members, and the information was collected using self-administered questionnaires. The study showed that BMCA improves emergency nurses’ behavioral intent, anxiety, self-efficacy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating activities. The study thus supports the implementation of BMCA in critical care and shows that nurses have a welcoming attitude towards BCMA due to its effectiveness.

Thompson et al. (2018) evaluated the effects of implementing BCMA in reducing patient harm. The study was conducted in a large Magnet organization hospital in all inpatient nursing units. From the study, BCMA is an effective technology that improves medication administration processes and prevents medication errors. According to the study, BCMA reduces patient harm by reducing medication administration errors in all units and reducing sentinel events in medication administration. The study results showed a 43% reduction in medication errors and a 55.4% reduction in patient harm by medication errors. The study also shows that technology must be used constantly to achieve the desired effects. It shows that BMCA is a viable technology for preventing medication errors in healthcare institutions.

Owens et al. (2020) evaluated the effects of implementing barcode medication administration on nurses’ satisfaction and medication administration errors. The study was conducted in an emergency department using direct observation and questionnaires to determine nurses’ satisfaction. The study showed that medication administration errors pre-implementation of BCMA was 2.78% pre-implementation and 0.79% post-implementation, and the nurses’ satisfaction improved from 2.69 to 2.60. The technology supports barcode medication administration and shows that it reduces medication administration errors and improves nurses’ satisfaction.

Darawad et al. (2019) evaluated nurses’ satisfaction with BMCA and the factors affecting their satisfaction with the technology. The study recruited 217 nurses from three hospitals with at least a bachelor’s degree training. The study revealed that the technology is generally accepted, but nurses were hesitant to implement the technology after some time. These nurses were comfortable with the technology and reported satisfaction. The study also evaluated the factors affecting satisfaction with the technology, including computer skills and training. While assumptions can be made that the technology is easy to use, it is imperative to ensure that nurses have at least basic training before implementing it. The article supports the PICOT by showing the importance of training staff before implementing the technology.

Lin et al. (2018) conducted a qualitative study using 32 nurses in 8 nursing stations in southwestern Taiwan using DeLone and McLean’s model of information systems. The study results showed that errors pre-to post-implementation reduced from 405 to 314, and the leading factor for poor outcomes was the failure to follow standard procedures. The study introduces a vital element of barriers to the success of the interventions. The study results will help in project planning to incorporate interventions that will improve nurses‘ intent to use standard procedures in medication administration.

Barakat and Franklin (2020) evaluated the effects of barcode medication administration on nursing workflow. The study was conducted in a teaching hospital in the UK. The study compared the results of wards utilizing BMCA and those not utilizing it. The results showed that BCMA does not alter the duration of medication administration, streamlines workflow, improves patient identification (74% identification rate), and eliminates errors associated with patient identification.

Literature Synthesis

The literature discusses various themes in medication administration. The authors work to show the problem’s existence, interactions with other medication error preventive interventions, outcomes in medication error prevention, and nurses’ attitudes toward the technology. The technology also streamlines workflow, improves patient identification processes, and does not alter medication durations (Barakat & Franklin, 2020). The information provided by these resources will help healthcare professionals with care interventions and medication administration error prevention in their respective critical care areas. BCMA is listed as some of the most effective safe medication administration practices.

However, Rishoej et al. (2018) and Greenberg et al. (2018) show that barcode medication administration technology is one of the least implemented technologies due to a lack of knowledge, resources, and extensive evidence of their implementation. Lunt and Mathiesen (2020) show that BCMA technology is well-tolerated and accepted by emergency nurses due to its ability to improve behavioral intent, anxiety, self-efficacy, effort expectancy, and social influence. The information is conflicted by Kung et al. (2020), who show that the intervention is not well-tolerated and there in medical-surgical units due to an increase in time used on a patient, despite increased efficiency and effectiveness of medication administration.

Lin et al. (2018) note that the leading system factor for medication errors is the failure to follow standard procedures due to a lack of knowledge. Darawad et al. (2019) cited a lack of staff knowledge and skills as a leading factor for hesitancy in implementing BCMA. Staff education increases self-efficacy and promotes self-confidence. Thus, staff education on BCMA and standard procedures are thus integral to the success of BCMA, especially because, as seen, BCMA requires prolonged and consistent use to produce the desired effects. 

Suggestions for Future Research

BCMA implementation faces varying attitudes depending on the departments. It is imperative to assess nurses’ attitudes toward technology and evaluate the causes of the underutilization of technology. More research into the underutilization of the technology and staff attitude towards it is necessary before the implementation of the technology in any healthcare institution. Other gaps in care include the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of these technologies in terms of the purchase and maintenance of the devices and data used in implementing these technologies. In addition, medication administration errors in intensive care units and step-down units should be explored further due to the scarcity of resources showing the efficacy of the technology in these units. Future research is also necessary for the effects of BCMA on care coordination and interprofessional collaboration.

Conclusion

BCMA technology is one of the most effective technologies in reducing medication administration errors and improving patient outcomes. The technology faces reluctance due to a lack of nurses’ knowledge and skills in the technology and the failure of nurses to follow standard procedures. BCMA technology reduces medication administration errors and patient harm, reduces patient harm, and complements other technologies in the medication administration process. Future research gaps include the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, research in intensive care units and step-down units, and factors leading to the underutilization of the technology because scanty information exists in these areas. From the literature, BCMA technology can potentially improve the medication administration process and reduce medication errors in healthcare institutions.

References

Barakat, S., & Franklin, B. D. (2020). An evaluation of the impact of barcode patient and medication scanning on nursing workflow at a UK teaching hospital. Pharmacy, 8(3), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8030148

Darawad, M. W., Othman, E. H., & Alosta, M. R. (2019). Nurses’ satisfaction with barcode medication?administration technology: Results of a cross?sectional study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 21(4), 461-469.https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12620

  Greenberg, R. G., Smith, P. B., Bose, C., Clark, R. H., Cotten, C. M., & DeRienzo, C. (2018). National survey of neonatal intensive care unit medication safety practices. American Journal of Perinatology, 35(14), 1419-1422.https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1660837

Küng, K., Aeschbacher, K., Rütsche, A., Goette, J., Zürcher, S., Schmidli, J., & Schwendimann, R. (2021). Effect of barcode technology on medication preparation safety: a quasi-experimental study. International Journal For Quality In Health Care, 33(1), mzab043. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab043

Lin, J. C., Lee, T. T., & Mills, M. E. (2018). Evaluation of a barcode medication administration information system. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 36(12), 596-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000459

 Lunt, C., & Mathieson, K. (2020). Emergency Department Nurses Attitudes Toward Barcode Medication Administration. Canadian Journal of Emergency Nursing, 43(1), 6-11. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjen17

Owens, K., Palmore, M., Penoyer, D., & Viers, P. (2020). The effect of implementing barcode medication administration in an emergency department on medication administration errors and nursing satisfaction. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 46(6), 884-891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2020.07.004

 Rishoej, R. M., Lai Nielsen, H., Strzelec, S. M., Fritsdal Refer, J., Allermann Beck, S., Gramstrup, H. M., Christesen, T. H., Kjeldsen, L. J., Hallas, J., & Almarsdóttir, A. B. (2018). Qualitative exploration of practices to prevent medication errors in neonatal intensive care units: a focus group study. Therapeutic Advances In Drug Safety, 9(7), 343-353.https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986187715

Thompson, K. M., Swanson, K. M., Cox, D. L., Kirchner, R. B., Russell, J. J., Wermers, R. A., Storlie, C. B.,  & Naessens, J. M. (2018). Implementation of barcode medication administration to reduce patient harm. Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes, 2(4), 342-351. Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.09.001

Solution: