Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings

Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings I’m studying for my Nursing class and need an explanation. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings Prepare this assignment as a 1,500-1,750 word paper using the instructor feedback from the previous course assignments and the guidelines below. PICOT Question Revise the PICOT question you wrote in the Topic 1 assignment using the feedback you received from your instructor. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The final PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project (the project students must complete during their final course in the RN-BSN program of study). Research Critiques In the Topic 2 and Topic 3 assignments, you completed a qualitative and quantitative research critique on two articles for each type of study (4 articles total). Use the feedback you received from your instructor on these assignments to finalize the critical analysis of each study by making appropriate revisions. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The completed analysis should connect to your identified practice problem of interest that is the basis for your PICOT question. Refer to “Research Critiques and PICOT Guidelines – Final Draft.” Questions under each heading should be addressed as a narrative in the structure of a formal paper. Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change Discuss the link between the PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem you identified. Include relevant details and supporting explanation and use that information to propose evidence-based practice changes. General Requirements Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings final_picot_research_week_1.docx final_rough_draft_quantitative_research_critique.docx article_american_journal_of_infection_control.pdf article_jamda.pdf final_rough_dra Quantitative Research Critique Aynur Kabota Grand Canyon University 05/24/2020 Quantitative Research Critique Quantitative research complements qualitative research by producing numerical results as proof for observations. The reliance on data for quantitative analysis is crucial in providing accurate definitions and measurements of different aspects of healthcare. Quantification of phenomena helps in planning interventions and effectively monitoring outcomes of those interventions. The research problem of comparing contact precautions to hand-washing can be effectively analyzed through quantitative research, which will produce results on how effective both interventions are in preventing MRSA acquisition. This paper presents a critique of two quantitative research articles that contribute to more knowledge on a comparison between contact isolation precautions and hand-washing in preventing MRSA acquisition. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The first study is titled “Discontinuation of Contact Precautions with the Introduction of Universal Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing” by McKinnell et al. (2017), and it presents a comparison of contact precautions with chlorhexidine bathing. This study focuses on the problem of contact precautions as in their effectiveness and compliance levels. The researchers identify gaps in practice and hence present a study to explore an alternative, chlorhexidine bathing. The significance of this problem to nursing is that controlling infections is a crucial role for nurses. Additionally, the researchers sought to determine whether discontinuation of contact precautions increased MRSA when universal chlorhexidine bathing was introduced. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The second study is by Morgan et al. (2019), and it is titled “The Effectiveness of Contact Precautions on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Long-term Care Across the United States.” In this study, the main problem identified is the prevalence of MRSA in long-term care facilities. Therefore, the researchers seek to establish whether or not contact precautions impacted the rates of MRSA acquisition in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). The significance of this study to nursing is in the role of nurses in LTCFs. Nurses in every healthcare facility have a responsibility to reduce the risk of healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs), and hence this problem affects their work. The research question was, therefore, whether contact precautions, compared to standard procedure, reduced MRSA acquisition. Support to Nurse Practice Issue McKinnell et al. (2017) compare contact isolation precautions with hygiene, and hence the structure of their study is generally the same as the PICOT question. The PICOT question compares contact isolation precautions to hand hygiene. Therefore, the intervention is contact isolation, and the comparison group is hand hygiene. In the study, the intervention is contact isolation, and the comparison is body hygiene using chlorhexidine bathing. Although the comparison groups are a bit different, they include hygiene practices. The study will be used to answer the PICOT question by presenting an evaluation of the effectiveness of body hygiene and how it works as well as contact isolation precautions. On the other hand, Morgan et al. (2019) compare contact isolation precautions to standard procedures. The intervention considered is similar to McKinnell et al. (2017) and also to the PICOT question. However, the comparison is standard procedures, and hence it differs from the hygiene comparison groups of the previous study and the PICOT question. By looking at standard procedures, the researchers still present an overview of the effectiveness of contact isolation precautions. Generally, this study will be used to determine whether contact isolation precautions are much better than standard procedures hence comparing the same with hand hygiene. Methods of the Study The two studies are very similar in the methods used because they both used interventions through policy changes as the main experimental approaches. Morgan et al. (2019) collected data from veteran affairs LTCFs before and after implementation of a contact isolation precaution policy. Similarly, McKinnell et al. (2017) collected data before and after implementation of policy change where contact isolation precautions were eliminated and replaced with chlorhexidine bathing. The only difference between the methods is that in the policy change. At the same time, Morgan et al. (2019) observed the introduction of a new policy, McKinnell et al. (2017) observed the discontinuation of one policy and the introduction of another. The advantage of the experimental methods used in both studies is that they provide a basis for comparing outcomes, and hence the impact is well-measured. On the other hand, the ethical implications of discontinuing a healthcare policy may be observed by the impact on the health of the patients. Nevertheless, the studies maintained an ethical approach to experimentation. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The studies presented no significant differences in MRSA acquisition with the policy change. McKinnell et al. (2017) found that discontinuing contact isolation precautions and introducing daily chlorhexidine bathing was not significantly correlated to an increase in MRSA acquisition. Therefore, they concluded that daily chlorhexidine bathing is as effective as contact isolation precautions in preventing MRSA acquisitions. In comparison, daily chlorhexidine bathing is more economical than contact isolation precautions, and hence it is recommended by this study. The ability to prevent MRSA acquisitions while managing the costs of healthcare are advised, as in this study’s outcomes. This study implies that contact isolation precautions in ICUs could be replaced with daily chlorhexidine bathing, which is less expensive. Similarly, Morgan et al. (2019) found no significant difference in rates of MRSA acquisition correlated with the introduction of contact isolation precautions in LTCFs for veterans. Primarily, the researchers found that contact isolation precautions did not have a significant effect on MRSA acquisition rates. The implications for these outcomes are connected to alternatives to contact isolation. The studies have shown no added advantage of contact isolation precautions in MRSA acquisition reduction. Therefore, in healthcare interventions, contact isolation precautions specifically for MRSA may not be required if hand standard hygiene procedures are in place. These studies suggest that the process may be an expensive redundancy in healthcare organizations. Outcomes Comparison The anticipated outcomes of the PICOT question problem were that contact isolation precautions are more effective than standard procedures and hand hygiene when preventing MRSA acquisition. However, the studies reviewed in this critique suggest otherwise. As compared to daily chlorhexidine bathing, contact isolation precautions are no better. Similarly, when compared to standard health procedures, isolation produces no added advantage. Therefore, the studies suggest that contact isolation precautions create no significant benefit in preventing MRSA. The intervention and comparison groups in the PICOT question, therefore, may have no significant differences in their outcomes. Although the studies do not directly address hand hygiene, the standard procedures in healthcare organizations also include hand hygiene. Therefore, Morgan et al. (2019) are nearly similar to the PICOT question, and it highlights the lack of significant difference between the comparison and intervention groups. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings Conclusion The article review shows that in the PICOT question, intervention and comparison groups may have no significant difference. This research has explored how contact isolation precautions compare to hand hygiene in MRSA prevention. The outcomes suggest that neither the intervention nor the comparison is more or less effective. The implications for practice are that the less economic interventions may be avoided due to extra spending by healthcare organizations. Contact isolation precautions should be used, but they are no better than hand hygiene in MRSA prevention. It is necessary to note that these findings are not final, and more research in different healthcare settings needs to be performed to assert the claim. It is also crucial to evaluate the potential sources of error and weakness in the studies. Nevertheless, contact isolation precautions present no significant advantage over standard health procedures in MRSA prevention. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings References McKinnell, J. A., Eells, S. J., Clark, E., Rand, D. D., Kiet, G. T., Macias-Gil, R., … & Miller, L. G. (2017). Discontinuation of contact precautions with the introduction of universal daily chlorhexidine bathing. Epidemiology & Infection , 145 (12), 2575-2581. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268817001121 Morgan, D. J., Zhan, M., Goto, M., Franciscus, C., Alexander, B., Vaughan-Sarrazin, M., … & Pineles, L. (2019). The Effectiveness of Contact Precautions on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Long-term Care Across the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, XX(XX):1–8. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1045 Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more

Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings

Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings I’m studying for my Nursing class and need an explanation. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings Prepare this assignment as a 1,500-1,750 word paper using the instructor feedback from the previous course assignments and the guidelines below. PICOT Question Revise the PICOT question you wrote in the Topic 1 assignment using the feedback you received from your instructor. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The final PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project (the project students must complete during their final course in the RN-BSN program of study). Research Critiques In the Topic 2 and Topic 3 assignments, you completed a qualitative and quantitative research critique on two articles for each type of study (4 articles total). Use the feedback you received from your instructor on these assignments to finalize the critical analysis of each study by making appropriate revisions. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The completed analysis should connect to your identified practice problem of interest that is the basis for your PICOT question. Refer to “Research Critiques and PICOT Guidelines – Final Draft.” Questions under each heading should be addressed as a narrative in the structure of a formal paper. Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change Discuss the link between the PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem you identified. Include relevant details and supporting explanation and use that information to propose evidence-based practice changes. General Requirements Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings final_picot_research_week_1.docx final_rough_draft_quantitative_research_critique.docx article_american_journal_of_infection_control.pdf article_jamda.pdf final_rough_dra Quantitative Research Critique Aynur Kabota Grand Canyon University 05/24/2020 Quantitative Research Critique Quantitative research complements qualitative research by producing numerical results as proof for observations. The reliance on data for quantitative analysis is crucial in providing accurate definitions and measurements of different aspects of healthcare. Quantification of phenomena helps in planning interventions and effectively monitoring outcomes of those interventions. The research problem of comparing contact precautions to hand-washing can be effectively analyzed through quantitative research, which will produce results on how effective both interventions are in preventing MRSA acquisition. This paper presents a critique of two quantitative research articles that contribute to more knowledge on a comparison between contact isolation precautions and hand-washing in preventing MRSA acquisition. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The first study is titled “Discontinuation of Contact Precautions with the Introduction of Universal Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing” by McKinnell et al. (2017), and it presents a comparison of contact precautions with chlorhexidine bathing. This study focuses on the problem of contact precautions as in their effectiveness and compliance levels. The researchers identify gaps in practice and hence present a study to explore an alternative, chlorhexidine bathing. The significance of this problem to nursing is that controlling infections is a crucial role for nurses. Additionally, the researchers sought to determine whether discontinuation of contact precautions increased MRSA when universal chlorhexidine bathing was introduced. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The second study is by Morgan et al. (2019), and it is titled “The Effectiveness of Contact Precautions on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Long-term Care Across the United States.” In this study, the main problem identified is the prevalence of MRSA in long-term care facilities. Therefore, the researchers seek to establish whether or not contact precautions impacted the rates of MRSA acquisition in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). The significance of this study to nursing is in the role of nurses in LTCFs. Nurses in every healthcare facility have a responsibility to reduce the risk of healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs), and hence this problem affects their work. The research question was, therefore, whether contact precautions, compared to standard procedure, reduced MRSA acquisition. Support to Nurse Practice Issue McKinnell et al. (2017) compare contact isolation precautions with hygiene, and hence the structure of their study is generally the same as the PICOT question. The PICOT question compares contact isolation precautions to hand hygiene. Therefore, the intervention is contact isolation, and the comparison group is hand hygiene. In the study, the intervention is contact isolation, and the comparison is body hygiene using chlorhexidine bathing. Although the comparison groups are a bit different, they include hygiene practices. The study will be used to answer the PICOT question by presenting an evaluation of the effectiveness of body hygiene and how it works as well as contact isolation precautions. On the other hand, Morgan et al. (2019) compare contact isolation precautions to standard procedures. The intervention considered is similar to McKinnell et al. (2017) and also to the PICOT question. However, the comparison is standard procedures, and hence it differs from the hygiene comparison groups of the previous study and the PICOT question. By looking at standard procedures, the researchers still present an overview of the effectiveness of contact isolation precautions. Generally, this study will be used to determine whether contact isolation precautions are much better than standard procedures hence comparing the same with hand hygiene. Methods of the Study The two studies are very similar in the methods used because they both used interventions through policy changes as the main experimental approaches. Morgan et al. (2019) collected data from veteran affairs LTCFs before and after implementation of a contact isolation precaution policy. Similarly, McKinnell et al. (2017) collected data before and after implementation of policy change where contact isolation precautions were eliminated and replaced with chlorhexidine bathing. The only difference between the methods is that in the policy change. At the same time, Morgan et al. (2019) observed the introduction of a new policy, McKinnell et al. (2017) observed the discontinuation of one policy and the introduction of another. The advantage of the experimental methods used in both studies is that they provide a basis for comparing outcomes, and hence the impact is well-measured. On the other hand, the ethical implications of discontinuing a healthcare policy may be observed by the impact on the health of the patients. Nevertheless, the studies maintained an ethical approach to experimentation. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings The studies presented no significant differences in MRSA acquisition with the policy change. McKinnell et al. (2017) found that discontinuing contact isolation precautions and introducing daily chlorhexidine bathing was not significantly correlated to an increase in MRSA acquisition. Therefore, they concluded that daily chlorhexidine bathing is as effective as contact isolation precautions in preventing MRSA acquisitions. In comparison, daily chlorhexidine bathing is more economical than contact isolation precautions, and hence it is recommended by this study. The ability to prevent MRSA acquisitions while managing the costs of healthcare are advised, as in this study’s outcomes. This study implies that contact isolation precautions in ICUs could be replaced with daily chlorhexidine bathing, which is less expensive. Similarly, Morgan et al. (2019) found no significant difference in rates of MRSA acquisition correlated with the introduction of contact isolation precautions in LTCFs for veterans. Primarily, the researchers found that contact isolation precautions did not have a significant effect on MRSA acquisition rates. The implications for these outcomes are connected to alternatives to contact isolation. The studies have shown no added advantage of contact isolation precautions in MRSA acquisition reduction. Therefore, in healthcare interventions, contact isolation precautions specifically for MRSA may not be required if hand standard hygiene procedures are in place. These studies suggest that the process may be an expensive redundancy in healthcare organizations. Outcomes Comparison The anticipated outcomes of the PICOT question problem were that contact isolation precautions are more effective than standard procedures and hand hygiene when preventing MRSA acquisition. However, the studies reviewed in this critique suggest otherwise. As compared to daily chlorhexidine bathing, contact isolation precautions are no better. Similarly, when compared to standard health procedures, isolation produces no added advantage. Therefore, the studies suggest that contact isolation precautions create no significant benefit in preventing MRSA. The intervention and comparison groups in the PICOT question, therefore, may have no significant differences in their outcomes. Although the studies do not directly address hand hygiene, the standard procedures in healthcare organizations also include hand hygiene. Therefore, Morgan et al. (2019) are nearly similar to the PICOT question, and it highlights the lack of significant difference between the comparison and intervention groups. Discussion: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings Conclusion The article review shows that in the PICOT question, intervention and comparison groups may have no significant difference. This research has explored how contact isolation precautions compare to hand hygiene in MRSA prevention. The outcomes suggest that neither the intervention nor the comparison is more or less effective. The implications for practice are that the less economic interventions may be avoided due to extra spending by healthcare organizations. Contact isolation precautions should be used, but they are no better than hand hygiene in MRSA prevention. It is necessary to note that these findings are not final, and more research in different healthcare settings needs to be performed to assert the claim. It is also crucial to evaluate the potential sources of error and weakness in the studies. Nevertheless, contact isolation precautions present no significant advantage over standard health procedures in MRSA prevention. GCU NRS 433V Week 1 MRSA Infection Control in Healthcare Settings References McKinnell, J. A., Eells, S. J., Clark, E., Rand, D. D., Kiet, G. T., Macias-Gil, R., … & Miller, L. G. (2017). Discontinuation of contact precautions with the introduction of universal daily chlorhexidine bathing. Epidemiology & Infection , 145 (12), 2575-2581. DOI: 10.1017/S0950268817001121 Morgan, D. J., Zhan, M., Goto, M., Franciscus, C., Alexander, B., Vaughan-Sarrazin, M., … & Pineles, L. (2019). The Effectiveness of Contact Precautions on Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Long-term Care Across the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, XX(XX):1–8. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1045 Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount