Literature review matrix | NURS 8110 – Theoretical and Scientific Foundations for Nursing | Walden University

 

This Assignment expands upon the work you have been conducting for this week’s Discussion. For this Assignment (which you will start this week, and submit by the end of Week 7), you will conduct a search for literature on your selected practice problem. A Literature Review Matrix template will be used to identify gaps in the literature.

To prepare:

  • Consider the practice problem you addressed in this week’s Discussion. (You may select a new issue if necessary, but it is not recommended.)
  • Review the guidelines in the Literature Review Matrix, included in the Learning Resources. Formulate a research question around your issue as indicated in Part I. Then complete Part II of the Matrix, identifying the resources you will use, search terms and criteria, and Boolean search strings.
  • Using the Walden Library, locate 10 articles related to your research question. At least one article must be a systematic review. All of the articles should be primary sources. NOTE: If appropriate, you may use the four articles you reviewed for this week’s Discussion.

Here is the discussion from your support post:

  

How does the literature strengthen or weaken the merit of your selected theoretical framework and practice problem?

The practice issue put forward by the author is that of minimizing the rate of recidivism in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. This is a health condition which needs extensive comprehension. The academic framework recommended in the previous week’s discussion to give a discourse to this issue, was the Quality Health Outcomes Model (QHOM). This hypothesis advocates that there are links or connection between the client’s characteristics, the healthcare interventions, context or system, and the patient’s outcomes. These connections are explained as possessing a bidirectional impact, inferring that the involvements mutually influence and are influenced by the characteristics of the client and the context so as to fashion preferred results. The intervention being conversed in all four selected articles and from previous week’s discussion, is offering regular and steady nursing observation or examination to discover variations in victim status, and avert worsening. 

The article by Kelly and Vincent (2011) and Fasolino and Verdin (2015) back-up the practice problem and the theoretical framework mutually. The two articles mark out a direct link between regular and steady nursing observation and a reduction or minimization in failure to save endeavors and victim worsening in other terms victims outcomes, as well as a relationship between frequent/consistent nursing examination or observation and the discovery of symptoms of patient weakening, basically the characteristics of patient. The two articles support the recognition of pitiable nursing examination or observation as an issue in the nursing practice, by explaining the rising level of failure to save endeavors and decline in patient health status when nursing examination was not satisfactory. Moreover, Watkins et.al, (2016), gives credit to the quality health outcomes model by determining a direct link between steady nursing surveillance basically intervention and enhanced safety of patient and aversion of lacking to save situations primarily the patient outcomes, along with a link between amplified nursing examination or observation and patient significant symptoms in other terms the patient characteristics. The article also backs up the conceptualization of minimal nursing monitoring as a practice issue by conferring the severe medical ailments that were determined via the improved monitoring of patient versus ailments that would contribute to patient health condition worsening to incorporate the necessity to take a life saving action.

What levels of evidence are most prevalent in these articles?

The articles by Kelly and Vincent (2011) and Fasolino and Verdin (2015), are mutually logical or methodical reviews and hence are mutually considered to be level one, levels of substantiation. The article by Watkins’ (2016) is a potential experimental study, as it is the product of an exclusive qualitative examination. The common level of substantiation is the level 1 evidence, which was the outcome of the two initial articles, which were all logical. 

Why do you think that level of evidence is most prevalent?

I consider level 1 is the most common because of the kind of study that was applied. In the contemporary world, internet access has established a prospect to acquire info and data from a range of databases. This has assisted the investigator to obtain more info to back up their hypothesis. Therefore, the methodical review has emerged a prominent research technique to retrieve a large percentage of pertinent info. 

References

Fasolino, T., & Verdin, T. (2015). Nursing Surveillance and Physiological Signs of Deterioration. MEDSURG Nursing, 24(6), 397-402.

Kelly, L., & Vincent, D. (2011). The dimensions of nursing surveillance: A concept analysis. Journal Of Advanced Nursing, 67(3), 652-661. doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2648.2010.05525.x

Sousa, K. H. (2016). Testing the Quality Health Outcomes Model Applied to Infection Prevention in Hospitals. Quality Management In Health Care, 25(3), 149-161. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000102

Swan, B. A. (2018). Evidence-based nursing care guidelines: Medical-surgical interventions. (p. 7). St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier

Tucker, S. (2017). The Role of Nursing Surveillance in Keeping Patients Safe. Journal Of Nursing Administration, 42(7/8), 361-368. doi:10.1097/NNA.0b013e3182619377

Watkins, T., Whisman, L., & Booker, P. (2016). Nursing assessment of continuous vital sign surveillance to improve patient safety on the medical/surgical unit. Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 25(1-2), 278-281. doi:10.1111/jocn.13102

Attach is the matrix. This assignment is for completion of part 1 and part 2

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
Open chat
Hello, welcome to our site. Kindly send us a message and we will be in contact with you right away. "We are simply the best"