NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
Grand Canyon University NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities– Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Grand Canyon University NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Grand Canyon University NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
The introduction for the Grand Canyon University NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
Need a high-quality paper urgently?
We can deliver within hours.
How to Write the Body for NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Sample Answer for NRS 445 Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
Benchmark – Ethical Conduct of Scholarly Activities
Application of the Belmont Principles: Case Study 1
| Belmont Report principles and the components of each principle | Explain how the case meets the components of each principle. | Explain how the case does not meet the components of each principle. | What steps can the nurse researcher or quality improvement manager take to adhere to the ethical principles identified in the Belmont Report? |
| Respect for Person Respect the right to choose, hold views, and act according to personal beliefs. Protect those with decreased capacity to make their own choice. Ensure voluntary participation. Provide informed consent, explaining the harms and benefits. | In the initial case, the woman diagnosed with breast, colon, and lung cancer consented to participate in the experimental therapy. This illustrates acknowledging individuals’ autonomy, self-determination, freedom, and decision-making abilities. In the second scenario, a cancer patient is willing to undergo experimental therapy. However, their partner opposes it, leading to an ethical dilemma regarding the principle of Respect for a Person (Pritchard, 2021). | In the first case, the patient’s decision to undergo experimental therapy despite a low chance of survival may suggest a diminished capacity to exercise autonomous choice. In another instance, the patient experienced sudden cardiac arrest, possibly resulting from inadequate communication regarding the potential risks and benefits associated with the experimental treatment. In the scenario above, the woman’s access to experimental therapy may be hindered due to her spouse’s failure to acknowledge her autonomy and dignity as an individual (Pritchard, 2021). | Before discussing the risks and benefits of pursuing aggressive therapy for a patient with aggressive cancer, nurse researchers should collaborate with the patient to determine the most effective approach for presenting medical information and aligning it with her values when communicating with her family or spouse. The patient can offer valuable perspective on how her spouse and family can better comprehend the medical information. They can also engage in a conversation about how to communicate her desire to pursue aggressive therapy to her family, even if she chooses not to disclose it directly (Pritchard, 2021). |
| Beneficence Minimize the harm/risks to the greatest extent possible. Maximize the potential benefits. Ensure that the patient’s rights and well-being precede science’s needs. | In the initial case, a woman diagnosed with breast, colon, and lung cancers and a poor prognosis willingly participated in experimental therapy. Remarkably, this therapy effectively treated her tumors, resulting in her being cancer-free for six years, thus demonstrating its beneficial outcomes (Redman & Caplan, 2021). | According to the researchers, the treatment has limited effectiveness and poses a significant risk, as evidenced by immediate cardiac failure observed in some trials (Redman & Caplan, 2021). | Nurse researchers should assess the risk-benefit ratio of chemotherapy and use evidence to inform their recommendations to patients, ensuring that the chosen course of action is optimal for the patient’s health and well-being. Researchers should implement appropriate safeguards to minimize any potential discomfort or harm to adhere to the principle of beneficence. Researchers are obligated to safeguard participants from exploitation per the principle of beneficence (Redman & Caplan, 2021). |
| Justice Justly distribute the benefits and burdens of the research. Guard against using vulnerable populations. Ensure a fair selection of research participants. Guard against coercion and undue influence. Avoid potential financial or other conflicts of interest. | In the initial case, the patient experienced positive outcomes from experimental cancer treatment as she remained cancer-free for six years, thereby exemplifying the ethical principle of justice (Millum, 2020). | Although the patient-derived advantages from the experimental cancer treatment, she participated in the trial despite having a low likelihood of survival. In the second scenario, a patient had cardiac arrest; however, in the last scenario, the patient may be deprived of the chance to get potential advantages from experimental cancer treatment just due to their spouse (Millum, 2020). | Nurse researchers must guarantee that the hardship imposed on the subjects is proportional to the likelihood of benefitting from the study results within the feasible constraints. There should be a greater emphasis on gathering as much information as possible from research before testing for the effectiveness of the experimental therapy (Millum, 2020). |
Application of the Belmont Principles: Case Study 2
| Belmont Report principles and the components of each principle. | Explain how the case meets the components of each principle. | Explain how the case does not meet the components of each principle. | What steps can the nurse researcher or quality improvement manager take to adhere to the ethical principles identified in the Belmont Report? |
| Respect for Person Respect the right to choose, hold views, and act according to personal beliefs. Protect those with decreased capacity to make their own choice. Ensure voluntary participation. Provide informed consent, explaining the harms and benefits. | Nurse researchers must guarantee that the hardship imposed on the subjects is proportional to the likelihood of benefitting from the study results within the feasible constraints. There should be a greater emphasis on gathering as much information as possible from research before testing for the effectiveness of the experimental therapy (Kimmelman, 2020). | The use of technological tools such as mobile phone reminders and GPS monitoring poses a risk to the individuals’ confidentiality, compromising their fundamental principle of Respect for a Person. It may also result in apprehension and constant surveillance – often called the panopticon phenomenon (Kimmelman, 2020). | Nurse researchers may promote respect for persons using innovative technology-enabled approaches to disseminate study material, ensure understanding, and monitor continuing consent and opt-out choices. The researcher is accountable for assessing a candidate’s proficiency, understanding, and suitability for the study (Kimmelman, 2020). |
| Beneficence Minimize the harm/risks to the greatest extent possible. Maximize the potential benefits. Ensure that the patient’s rights and well-being take precedence over science’s needs. | Utilizing technology, such as sending text message reminders to participants about their research meetings and enabling rescheduling of visits and GPS monitoring, may enhance adherence to the treatment plan being evaluated. Consequently, this increases the likelihood of positive outcomes (Earl, 2020). | The rural community generally lacks sufficient knowledge about the nature of GPS technology, which might overshadow the requirements and desires of the participants/patients (Earl, 2020). | In order to uphold the principle of beneficence, nurse researchers must employ new technology to engage in various tasks such as patient recruitment, obtaining informed consent, extracting data from patient records, conducting follow-up appointments, and ensuring patient safety throughout the study (Earl, 2020). |
| Justice Justly distribute the benefits and burdens of the research. Guard against using vulnerable populations.Ensure a fair selection of research participants.Guard against coercion and undue influence. Avoid potential financial or other conflicts of interest. | If patients consent to receive text message reminders and be monitored with GPS, the ethical principle of Justice may be followed. This will ensure that the study is successful and beneficial to both the researcher and participants (Schupmann & Moreno, 2020). | Utilizing technology to locate and oversee research participants may result in unwarranted exclusion, prejudice, and stigma (Schupmann & Moreno, 2020). | Before commencing the recruitment of study participants, the nurse researchers should provide comprehensive education to the general community on their intended utilization of technology in the study and its rationale. They should safeguard the system’s security by implementing suitable measures. Ultimately, only those who clearly comprehend the study’s nature and implications should be granted permission to participate (Schupmann & Moreno, 2020). |
Personal Reflection
| In less than 250 words, discuss how the ethical principles from the Belmont Report align with the Christian worldview. Reflect on your current nursing practice and describe how these ethical principles align with your nursing practice. |
| The ethical principles of the Belmont Report, namely respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, are based on the Christian worldview as they promote the adoption of shared values. The ethical principles prioritize carers’ demonstration of compassion, integrity, and recognition of the inherent value of all individuals, irrespective of their differences, backgrounds, and abilities (Millum, 2020). From a Christian standpoint, the principles align with biblical teachings that emphasize love, empathy, and the recognition of human dignity. These principles are essential for providing patient-centered care in my nursing practice. I consistently uphold the principle of respect for patients, ensuring their autonomy is honored. I have consistently upheld patients’ autonomy in making informed decisions regarding their health. Beneficence is demonstrated through the dedication to maximizing benefits and minimizing harm. This principle is consistent with the Christian value of altruism (Schupmann & Moreno, 2020). Nurses must adhere to the principle of justice, which entails ensuring equitable treatment and impartiality. The principle also involves promoting equal access to healthcare resources. The Christian worldview promotes compassion as an ethical foundation for justice in nursing. Furthermore, it promotes a mindset that extends beyond one’s professional obligations. In my current practice, I implement this concept by recognizing patients as unique individuals deserving of empathy and respect rather than viewing them solely as medical cases (Earl, 2020). Furthermore, I consistently prioritize the compassionate consideration of patients’ physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. |
References
Earl, J. (2020). The Belmont Report and Innovative Practice. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(2), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0021
Kimmelman, J. (2020). What Is Human Research For? Reflections on the Omission of Scientific Integrity from the Belmont Report. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0017
Millum, J. (2020). International Clinical Research and Justice in the Belmont Report. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(2), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0025
Pritchard, I. A. (2021). Framework for the ethical conduct of research: The ethical principles of the Belmont Report. Handbook of Research Ethics in Psychological Science., pp. 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000258-001
Redman, B. K., & Caplan, A. L. (2021). Should the Regulation of Research Misconduct Be Integrated with the Ethics Framework Promulgated in The Belmont Report ? Ethics & Human Research, 43(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500078
Schupmann, W., & Moreno, J. D. (2020). Belmont in Context. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(2), 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2020.0028
NRS 445 Final Draft – Research Critiques and Evidence-Based Practice Proposal
Research Critiques and Evidence-Based Practice Proposal
Evidence-based practice in nursing is important for the provision of care that optimizes outcomes. Nurses utilize their experiences in the care process and leadership to identify issues that can be addressed and improved with evidence-based interventions. Organizations strive to create environments that support best practices. The aim is to enhance safety, quality, and efficiency outcomes (Shayan et al., 2019). Health problems such as catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) greatly affect the patient’s health, health systems, and nursing care. Specific populations such as those with chronic conditions admitted to long-term care facilities have an increased risk of developing CAUTIs Carter et al., 2016; Shadle et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2019). Nurses should explore and adopt best practices for CAUTIs among this population.
This paper reviews the literature on the use of best practices, including CAUTIs bundles for CAUTIs prevention and rates in long-term care settings. CAUTIs are among the most common healthcare-associated infections in health institutions. It develops among patients with indwelling catheters. CAUTIs develop due to factors such as prolonged catheterization, lack of sterility in catheter insertion, and contamination from bowel movements (Shadle et al., 2021). CAUTIs act as a source of significant disease burden to patients, families, and health organizations. CAUTIs contribute to about 9% of all hospital-acquired infections in health organizations. They also increase care costs due to prolonged hospitalization and the demand for complex care. CAUTIs are preventable. Bundle interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing and reducing CAUTIs in healthcare (Decker et al., 2021). However, their effectiveness has not been explored in the practice site, hence, the project’s focus.
PICOT Question
In the dilapidated patients admitted to long-term care units and using indwelling catheters, how does the use of CAUTI bundles compared to securing and positioning of catheters affect CAUTI rates within eight weeks?
Quantitative Studies: Methods
Two quantitative studies were used in this literature review. They include the studies by Decker et al. (2021) and Shadle et al. (2021). The study by Shadle et al. (2021) investigated the effectiveness of a bundle-based approach in preventing CAUTIs in the intensive care unit. The increase in the number of CAUTIs above the benchmark data informed this study. Accordingly, the institution reported 13 CAUTIs against the hospital benchmark of 4 or fewer CAUTIs annually. The project targeted a 30% reduction in CAUTIs, a 20% reduction in urinary catheter days, and a 75% compliance rating in catheter-related documentation in the intensive care unit (Shadle et al., 2021).
The methods used in the research by Shadle et al. (2021) were appropriate. A pre-post design over 2 consecutive 4-month periods was used in the research. The intervention targeted critically ill patients aged 18 years and above and admitted to the intensive care unit and catheterized. The bundle interventions included staff education, nurse-driven removal protocol for indwelling urinary catheters, and an electronic daily checklist. The obtained data was analyzed using mixed statistics such as Fisher exact tests and independent sample t-tests. Methods such as a pre-post design are appropriate for the project aim because it shows the impact of the bundle interventions on the rate of CAUTIs (Shadle et al., 2021). The selected bundled interventions also support the use of best practices to address CAUTIs.
The other quantitative study selected for the literature review is the research by Decker et al. (2021). Decker et al. (2021) investigated the effect of bundle interventions on CAUTIs in critical care units. Decker et al. (2021) study was conducted in Boston Medical Center to decrease CAUTI rates in the intensive care units using five bundles. The bundles included new processes for catheter insertion and maintenance, indications for catheter insertion, appropriate testing for CAUTIs, alternatives to indwelling devices, and sterilization techniques. Unit nursing supervisors performed daily rounds to determine appropriate catheter use in the unit. The interventions by Decker et al. (2021) are appropriate since they demonstrate the effectiveness of nurse-led bundle interventions in addressing CAUTIs.
Qualitative Studies: Methods
Qualitative studies by Quinn et al. (2020) and Parker et al. (2020) were included in the literature review. The study by Quinn et al. (2020) explored persistent barriers to detecting and removing unnecessary catheters in healthcare settings. The authors adopted a multi method qualitative study design that included in-person interviews and observations of clinicians working in a large hospital. Some of the observations included shadowing nurses during shift changes and when admitting patients and observing doctors during morning rounds. Unstructured field notes were used to gather observational data. Semi structured interviews were conducted, audiotaped, and transcribed. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify the main themes. The methods used in the study by Quinn et al. (2020) were appropriate for the project’s aim. For example, the use of multimethod qualitative approaches enriched the data obtained on the barriers to detecting and removing unnecessary catheters. Unstructured field notes and semistructured interviews ensure the relevance and accuracy of the data.
The study by Parker et al. (2020) provided insights into clinicians’ experiences in implementing multifaceted bundled urinary catheter care interventions in four acute care hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. The researchers adopted a pre and post-intervention study design to implement the catheter care bundle. A focus was on implementing the intervention in all adult inpatient wards, operating theaters, inpatient wards, and emergency departments in the four hospitals. The bundle interventions focused on improving clinician’s decision-making on catheter insertion, care, and removal practices. Focus groups were conducted in the four hospitals to understand the implementation process from the clinicians’ perspective, and identify barriers and enablers to successful implementation (Parker et al., 2020). The adopted interventions in this study answer the project focus. For example, the use of bundle interventions provides insights into the effectiveness of the proposed project change.
Summary of Findings
The study by Parker et al. (2020) found that the main complexity and challenges associated with the implementation of bundle intervention could be understood from varied themes. They included early and sustained engagement with key stakeholders, good planning but remaining flexible, managing the burden of practice change, and adopting and sustaining practice change. Therefore, the researchers recommended the need for interventions that address the institutional barriers that hinder the use of bundle interventions for CAUTIs.
The study by Quinn et al. (2020) found themes that relate to barriers to detecting and removing unnecessary catheters. They include catheters being hard to find, not accurate, or not available, catheter removal is not a priority, confusion about who has the authority to remove catheters, and lack of agreement on and awareness of standard protocols and indications for removal and communication barriers. These barriers should be eliminated to ensure consistent use of best practices that prevent CAUTIs in nursing practice.
The study by Shadle et al. (2021) found that the implementation of the bundle interventions led to no CAUTIs during the intervention period and reduced the rate by 1.33 per 1000 catheter days. There was also a statistically insignificant increase in catheter days by 10.5%. Documentation compliance increased significantly from 50.0% before to 83.3% during the intervention. This study provides insights into the effectiveness of bundle interventions in preventing CAUTIs.
The study by Decker et al. (2021) found that bundle interventions reduced CAUTIs from 53 in 2013 to 9 in 2017 and a 33.8% reduction in the utilization of indwelling catheters. CAUTIs awareness education, insertion, and removal protocols, and implementation of PureWick female incontinence devices had significant and clear effects on reducing CAUTIs rates (Decker et al., 2021). Therefore, the results inform the need for interventions such as training and education for nurses on the effective use of bundle interventions to prevent and reduce CAUTIs.
Anticipated Outcomes for PICOT Question
The PICOT question is associated with some anticipated outcomes. Firstly, the use of bundle interventions is expected to reduce CAUTI rates in long-term care facilities. Evidence obtained from the included studies demonstrates a decrease in CAUTI rate with the use of bundle interventions (Quinn et al., 2020; Shadle et al., 2021). The other anticipated outcome is the increase in the provider’s knowledge about indications, contraindications of indwelling catheters, and indwelling urinary catheter care. Bundle interventions such as education and training increase the provider’s knowledge about the safe use of indwelling urinary catheters. The third anticipated outcome is the reduction in hospital stay and hospitalization costs for patients with indwelling urinary catheters. CAUTIs increase the length of hospital stay and costs incurred in treating hospitalized patients (Ling et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2019). The proposed bundle interventions will reduce and prevent CAUTIs, hence, efficiency in long-term facilities.
Comparison of Outcomes of the Selected Studies to the Anticipated PICOT Outcome
The outcomes of the selected studies align with the anticipated PICOT outcomes. The PICOT question anticipates that the use of bundle interventions would reduce CAUTIs in nursing practice. This anticipation aligns with the results reported in the selected studies. For example, Shadle et al. (2021) found that bundle interventions eliminated CAUTIs, which support the PICOT outcomes. Similarly, Decker et al. (2021) revealed that bundle interventions reduce CAUTIs and increase healthcare provider’s knowledge of the appropriate use of indwelling urinary catheters.
Health organizations experience challenges when implementing best practices to address practice issues such as CAUTIs. Issues such as the lack of knowledge and skills on the translation of best practices into nursing care and protocols hinder the use of best practices in the delivery of nursing care. It is anticipated in the project that some of these challenges might be experienced. As a result, this anticipation aligns with the findings in the studies by Parker et al., (2020) and Quinn et al. (2020). The authors provide insights into the potential barriers such as lack of protocols and providers not prioritizing catheter removal. The barriers might be experienced when implementing the proposed bundle interventions, hence, the need for anticipatory strategies to overcome the barriers when implementing the proposed initiative.
The Link between the PICOT Question, Research Articles, and Identified Nursing Problem
The identified nursing problem is CAUTI. The existing evidence shows the increased risk of CAUTIs among hospitalized patients with indwelling catheters. CAUTIs have adverse outcomes such as prolonging the length of hospital stay, increasing care costs, predisposing patients to other complications, and premature deaths (Carter et al., 2016; Shadle et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2019). Nurses should adopt best practices with the aim of preventing and reducing CAUTIs. The selected research articles provide insights into the effectiveness of bundle interventions in preventing and reducing CAUTIs. They also inform about the barriers that might be encountered in implementing the proposed change in the project. The PICOT question seeks to determine the effectiveness of bundle interventions in reducing and preventing CAUTIs. Therefore, the PICOT question, research articles, and the identified nursing problem are interrelated.
Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change
The proposed evidence-based practice change based on the reviewed evidence is the implementation of bundle interventions to prevent and reduce CAUTIs in long-term care facility. The bundle interventions include educating nurses on indications, contraindications, evaluation, care, and removal of urinary catheters, the introduction of a daily checklist for indwelling urinary catheters, and nurse-driven protocol for catheter removal. The practice change will address CAUTIs by strengthening the consistent use of best practices in catheter insertion, care, and removal. Staff training will equip them with the required competencies in assessing the need, caring for, and removing indwelling urinary catheters. The proposed change is evidence-based as seen from the evidence from the included studies in this review.
Organizational factors such as leadership support and supporting the consistent use of best practices will influence the success of the proposed change. Leadership support in forms such as mentorship and coaching will encourage the staff to explore additional interventions that would support excellence in service provision. Regular feedback from the implementers of the project information will be obtained to inform improvement strategies for the proposed change.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper has reviewed two quantitative and two qualitative articles that relate to the developed PICOT question and the project’s focus. The reviewed articles showed the effectiveness of bundle interventions in reducing and preventing CAUTIs. The articles also identified barriers that might be experienced when implementing bundle interventions and evidence-based practices for CAUTIs. Outcomes in the selected studies align with the anticipated PICOT outcomes. The anticipated PICOT outcomes include reduction and prevention of CAUTIs, increase in providers’ knowledge about CAUTIs prevention and reduction, and reduction in the length of hospital stay and costs for patients with indwelling urinary catheters. Based on the findings of this review, this paper proposes the use of bundle interventions to prevent and reduce CAUTIs among hospitalized patients in long-term care settings.
References
Carter, E. J., Pallin, D. J., Mandel, L., Sinnette, C., & Schuur, J. D. (2016). A Qualitative Study of Factors Facilitating Clinical Nurse Engagement in Emergency Department Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 46(10), 495–500.
Decker, S. G. V., Bosch, N., & Murphy, J. (2021). Catheter-associated urinary tract infection reduction in critical care units: A bundled care model. BMJ Open Quality, 10(4), e001534. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001534
Ling, R., Giles, M., & Searles, A. (2022). Budget impact analysis of a multifaceted nurse-led intervention to reduce indwelling urinary catheter use in New South Wales Hospitals. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), 1000. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08313-7
Parker, V., Giles, M., King, J., & Bantawa, K. (2020). Barriers and facilitators to implementation of a multifaceted nurse-led intervention in acute care hospitals aimed at reducing indwelling urinary catheter use: A qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(15–16), 3042–3053. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15337
Quinn, M., Ameling, J. M., Forman, J., Krein, S. L., Manojlovich, M., Fowler, K. E., King, E. A., & Meddings, J. (2020). Persistent Barriers to Timely Catheter Removal Identified from Clinical Observations and Interviews. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 46(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2019.10.004
Shadle, H. N., Sabol, V., Smith, A., Stafford, H., Thompson, J. A., & Bowers, M. (2021). A Bundle-Based Approach to Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections in the Intensive Care Unit. Critical Care Nurse, 41(2), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2021934
Shayan, S. J., Kiwanuka, F., & Nakaye, Z. (2019). Barriers Associated With Evidence-Based Practice Among Nurses in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 16(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12337
Smith, D. R. M., Pouwels, K. B., Hopkins, S., Naylor, N. R., Smieszek, T., & Robotham, J. V. (2019). Epidemiology and health-economic burden of urinary-catheter-associated infection in English NHS hospitals: A probabilistic modelling study. Journal of Hospital Infection, 103(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.04.010