Make an Evidence Based Practice in PPT
Make a PPT with Evidence Base Practice. PICOT Question: Are educated Medical-Surgical nurses (I) more successful in performing COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs (P) compared with non-educated Medical-Surgical nurses (C) for accurate COVID-19 test results (O)?
I uploaded a PPT that you can use/edit. Check all the articles in the reference list I put in and search 3 more articles that is related to my PICOT question. You have to base all the articles to my PICOT questions. I need it tomorrow in less than 24 hours, if early I appreciate it. Thank you.
*Hope you know how to grade articles using The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Rating Scale.
Nasopharyngeal Swab Education for COVID-19
Outline
Introduction
Knowledge Focused Trigger
Organizational Priorities
Current Practice
PICOT Question
Literature Review
Appraisal of Evidence
Synthesis of Evidence
Strengths and Limitations
Summary of Findings
Information Gathering
Recommendations
Conclusion
References
Introduction
Knowledge Focused Trigger
Organizational Priorities
Current Practice
Information Gathering
PICOT Question
Are educated MedSurg nurses (I) more successful in performing COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs (P) compared with non-educated MedSurg nurses (C) for accurate COVID-19 test results (O)?
Literature Review
Databases/ Sources of Articles
Key Words: COVID-19, Nasopharyngeal swab, education, training, video, medical-surgical, nurse
PubMed
CINAHL Library
A search using the keywords above produced a total of __ articles. After eliminating duplicates or out-of-date articles, and those that were non-applicable, our number of pertinent articles was reduced to 10.
Appraisal of Evidence
| Level of Evidential Strength* | Number of Studies | Overall Quality |
| Level I: Evidence obtained from experimental studies, such as RCTs, & systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis. | For example (2) | For example (A) |
| Level II: Evidence obtained from quasi-experimental studies, or systematic reviews consisting of a combination of RCTs & quasi-experimental studies. | ||
| Level III: Evidence obtained from non-experimental studies, mixed-method studies, & qualitative studies. | ||
| Level IV: Opinions of respected authorities or nationally recognized subject matter expert committees based on scientific evidence. | ||
| Level V: Based non-research evidence such as literature reviews, case studies, quality improvement, & expert opinion based on experiential evidence. | 6 | B |
Base the Appraisal of Evidence using The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Rating Scale (check the uploaded scale)
Number of Studies: Based on the following articles in the Reference list.
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths:
Limitations:
Synthesis of Evidence
| Article | Level of Evidence | Grade | Summary |
| Abud et al. | II (Example only) | B (Example only) | (Example Only) A quasi-experimental study in which a visual-focused video regarding toileting assistance was developed for patient education. A feasibility trial was conducted in an acute ward. |
| Bwire et al. | |||
| Chaghari et al. | |||
| Chee et al. | |||
| Li et al. | |||
| Mark et al. | |||
| Pondaven-Letourmy et al. | |||
| Any other articles you search? | |||
| Any other articles you search? | |||
| Any other articles you search? |
Base the Appraisal of Evidence using The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Rating Scale (check the uploaded scale)
Summary of Findings
Recommendations
In-service training
Reinforce teaching back to measure knowledge
Appoint a designated person to teach each floor (Superuser)
Use visual models
Training session with video instruction and live demonstration
3D printed nose models during swab training sessions
Conclusion
References
Abud, B. T., Hajnas, N. M., Redleaf, M., Kerolus, J. L., & Lee, V. (2020). Assessing the Impact of a Training Initiative for Nasopharyngeal and Oropharyngeal Swabbing for COVID-19 Testing. OTO open, 4(3), 2473974X20953094. https://doi.org/10.1177/2473974X20953094
Bwire, G. M., Majigo, M. V., Njiro, B. J., & Mawazo, A. (2020). Detection profile of sars‐cov‐2 using rt‐pcr in different types of clinical specimens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Medical Virology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26349
Chaghari, M., Saffari, M., Ebadi, A., & Ameryoun, A. (2017). Empowering education: A new model for in-service training of nursing staff. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 5(1), 26–32.
Chee J, Lin X, Lim WS, Loh WS, Thong M, Ng L. Using 3D-printed nose models in nasopharyngeal swab training. Oral Oncol. 2020 Oct 8:105033. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105033.
Li, L., Shim, T., & Zapanta, P. E. (2020). Optimization of COVID-19 testing accuracy with nasal anatomy education. American journal of otolaryngology,
42(1), 102777. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102777
References
Mark, M. E., LoSavio, P., Husain, I., Papagiannopoulos, P., Batra, P. S., & Tajudeen, B. A. (2020). Effect of implementing simulation education on health care worker comfort with nasopharyngeal swabbing for covid-19. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 163(2), 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820933168
Pondaven-Letourmy, S., Alvin, F., Boumghit, Y., & Simon, F. (2020). How to perform a nasopharyngeal swab in adults and children in the covid-19 era. European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases, 137(4), 325–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2020.06.001
World Health Organization. WHO coronavirus disease (COVID-19) dashboard. Published 2020. Accessed November 16, 2020. https://covid19.who.int
References
JHNEBP EVIDENCE RATING SCALES
© The Johns Hopkins Hospital/The Johns Hopkins University
SSTTRREENNGGTTHH of the Evidence Level I Experimental study/randomized controlled trial (RCT) or meta analysis of RCT Level II Quasi-experimental study Level III Non-experimental study, qualitative study, or meta-synthesis. Level IV Opinion of nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert
consensus panel (systematic review, clinical practice guidelines) Level V Opinion of individual expert based on non-research evidence. (Includes case
studies; literature review; organizational experience e.g., quality improvement and financial data; clinical expertise, or personal experience)
QQUUAALLIITTYY of the Evidence
A High
Research consistent results with sufficient sample size, adequate control, and definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on extensive literature review that includes thoughtful reference to scientific evidence.
Summative reviews
well-defined, reproducible search strategies; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well defined studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies; definitive conclusions.
Organizational well-defined methods using a rigorous approach; consistent results with sufficient sample size; use of reliable and valid measures
Expert Opinion expertise is clearly evident B Good Research reasonably consistent results, sufficient sample size, some control, with fairly definitive conclusions;
reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence
Summative reviews
reasonably thorough and appropriate search; reasonably consistent results with sufficient numbers of well defined studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies; fairly definitive conclusions.
Organizational Well-defined methods; reasonably consistent results with sufficient numbers; use of reliable and valid measures; reasonably consistent recommendations
Expert Opinion expertise appears to be credible. C Low quality
or major flaws
Research little evidence with inconsistent results, insufficient sample size, conclusions cannot be drawn Summative reviews
undefined, poorly defined, or limited search strategies; insufficient evidence with inconsistent results; conclusions cannot be drawn
Organizational Undefined, or poorly defined methods; insufficient sample size; inconsistent results; undefined, poorly defined or measures that lack adequate reliability or validity
Expert Opinion expertise is not discernable or is dubious. *A study rated an A would be of high quality, whereas, a study rated a C would have major flaws that raise serious questions about the believability of the findings and should be automatically eliminated from consideration.
Newhouse R, Dearholt S, Poe S, Pugh LC, White K. The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-based Practice Rating Scale. 2005. Baltimore, MD,
The Johns Hopkins Hospital; Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing.
For any questions, feedback, or comments, we have an ethical customer support team that is always waiting on the line for your inquiries.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!