WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research

WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research I need help with a Article Writing question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn. NURSING SCIENCE Competencies: 724.8.5: Foundations of Inquiry – The graduate differentiates between quality improvement processes, evidence based practice and research. 724.8.6 Literature Review and Analysis – The graduate demonstrates knowledge of the process and outcomes of conducting a literature review. 724.8.7: Ethics and Research – The graduate demonstrates understanding of the ethics of nursing research particularly human subjects’ protections, informed consent and alignment with patient and family values and preferences. 724.8.8: Patient Outcomes – The graduate discriminates between identified standards and practices that do not provide improvements in patient outcomes utilizing relevant sources of evidence and the application of nursing theory. 724.8.9: Data Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination – The graduate describes the process of data collection, analysis and implementation of evidence that can improve clinical practice from an interprofessional perspective. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Introduction: There are many sources of information available on the web and in journals relating to the nursing discipline. Therefore, it is of pivotal importance to understand the basic tenets of critical appraisal of research for its use in intraprofessional healthcare practices. The aim of evidence-based practice (EBP) is to employ a three-pronged approach blending the best available research evidence, patient values and preferences, and clinical expertise. In this task, you will critique two primary research evidence sources. You will select one quantitative and one qualitative peer-reviewed journal article on a healthcare topic of interest. The rubric provides detailed criteria for evaluating your submission. You are expected to use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course. A. Evaluate a primary quantitative research peer-reviewed journal article ( suggested length of 3–5 pages ) that has healthcare implications by doing the following: 1. Identify how the researcher addresses the five following areas of the selected journal article, using the attached “Evidence Table”: • background or introduction • review of the literature • discussion of methodology • data analysis • researcher’s conclusion 2. Critique whether the evidence presented in each section of the journal article supports the researcher’s conclusion. Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address A1. A2-A5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. Note: Try to think about how the first four sections in the A1 table support the fifth section, the conclusion. 3. Explain the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations of the journal article. 4. Identify strengths and limitations of the study. 5. Describe how the evidence informs nursing practice. B. Evaluate a primary qualitative research peer-reviewed journal article ( suggested length of 3–5 pages ) that has healthcare implications by doing the following: 1. Identify how the researcher addresses the five following areas of the selected journal article, using the attached “Evidence Table”: • background or introduction • review of the literature • discussion of methodology • data analysis • researcher’s conclusion 2. Critique whether the evidence presented in each section of the journal article supports the researcher’s conclusion. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address B1. B2-B5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. Note: Try to think about how the first four sections in the B1 table support the fifth section, the conclusion. 3. Explain the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations of the journal article. 4. Identify strengths and limitations of the study. 5. Describe how the evidence informs nursing practice. C. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. AT LEAST 3 PAGES FOR QUANTITATIVE AND 3 PAGES FOR QUALITATIVE ARTICLES evidence_table.docx qualitative_point_of_care_triage.pdf quantitative_human_trafficking.pdf xap_task_1_rubric.doc ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS XAP1: Evidence Based Practice and Applied Nursing Research REV: 012018 Evidence-Based Practice and Applied Nursing Research Evidence Table A1 Quantitative Article: (Indicate primary evidence chosen with an APA citation) Background or Introduction Review of the Literature Discussion of Methodology Data Analysis Researcher’s Conclusion Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address A1. A2-A5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. B1 Qualitative Article: (Indicate primary evidence chosen with an APA citation) Background or Introduction Review of the Literature Discussion of Methodology Data Analysis Researcher’s Conclusion Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address B1. B2-B5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. PAGE 1 American Journal of Emergency Medicine (2013) 31, 291–296 www.elsevier.com/locate/ajem Original Contribution Utility of point-of-care testing in ED triage?,?? Olanrewaju A. Soremekun MD, MBA a,?, Elizabeth M. Datner MD a , Simon Banh RN, BSN a , Lance B. Becker MD a , Jesse M. Pines MD, MBA, MSCE b a Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA 19104 Departments of Emergency Medicine and Health Policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC b Received 1 June 2012; revised 28 June 2012; accepted 20 July 2012 Abstract Background: Triage systems are commonly used in emergency departments (ED) to prioritize patients. Laboratory testing is not typically used to help risk-stratify patients at triage. Objectives: We studied the utility of point-of-care (POC) testing at triage in ED patients with high-risk complaints. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study on a convenience sample of ED patients at an urban academic hospital with 60,000 annual visits. Patients who were triaged to the waiting area with any of the following criteria were approached for enrollment: (1) chest pain or shortness of breath in patients older than 40 years, (2) possible infection in the presence of two or more systemic inflammatory response system criteria in patients older than 18 years, and (3) patients N 65 years with non-traumatic complaints. A total of 300 subjects were enrolled. All enrolled patients received POC testing that included a combination of Chem8+, hemoglobin, troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and lactate. The triage nurse completed a survey after receiving the results. Results: POC results was reported to be helpful in 56% of patients, changed the triage level in 15% of patients and led to 6% of patients being brought back for rapid physician evaluation. Overall, 50% of patients had one or more abnormal POC laboratory tests. There was no relationship between ED census and the likelihood of being helpful, changing the triage level, changing management, or bringing patients back any faster. Conclusion: POC testing at triage is a helpful adjunct in triage of patients with high-risk ED complaints. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Triage systems are used commonly in hospital-based emergency departments (ED) to prioritize patients with ? Prior Presentations: No. Financial Support: Abbott Point-of-Care, Princeton NJ. ? Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 215 615 3477.WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research E-mail address: [email protected] (O.A. Soremekun). ?? 0735-6757/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.025 regard to severity of illness and resource needs. The need for triage is borne out of periods where resources (ie, staff or space) become constrained, requiring newly arriving patients to wait. Effective triage systems are especially important in settings with prolonged wait times. Commonly, an experienced nurse considering the presenting complaint, overall appearance, comorbidities, and vital signs assigns a triage level. More recently, some EDs are incorporating physician triage and advance triage protocols into their traditional triage systems to improve triage accuracy and effectiveness 292 [1]. The most commonly used triage system in the United States is the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), which has 5 levels, with level 1 corresponding to the highest acuity, most resource-intensive patients and level 5 corresponding to the lowest acuity, least resource-intensive patients [2,3]. Although the incorporation of physician or nursinginitiated orders in triage is becoming common place, the main focus of these interventions in the published literature has been the role of early orders in reducing the total length of stay and ED bed time with no data reported on the impact on patient safety or the quality of the triage process [4,5]. Given typical laboratory turnaround times, incorporating laboratory results into the triage of patients with high-risk complaints has been very limited. To date, none of the current triage systems integrate laboratory results into assigning triage levels. Integrating laboratory testing into triage presents an opportunity to increase the accuracy of triage by helping enhance risk-strati?cation. Historically, laboratory results have been logistically dif?cult to obtain and incorporate into triage systems because results are not immediately available. Recently, newly available point-ofcare (POC) testing with handheld devices presents an opportunity to add important clinical information to the ED triage process to help identify patients who need immediate care or could potentially wait for longer periods of time. Several studies have explored the feasibility of using POC testing in pre-hospital settings or at ED triage [6-9]; however, to our knowledge, no studies have tested the impact on patient management or value of this information to triage nurses. We assessed the utility of POC testing in patients who were triaged to the waiting area who had potentially high-risk complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, possible infection with two or more systemic in?ammatory response system (SIRS) criteria, and older adults with non-traumatic complaints. We determined the rates of abnormal POC laboratory results and how this information impacted waiting area management decisions. 2. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on a convenience sample of ED patients who were triaged to the waiting room area at a single inner-city academic hospital. The hospital sees approximately 60,000 annual patient visits per year and has a 4-year emergency medicine residency training program. At the study site, there are periods during peak times, in which patients wait for prolonged periods of time in the waiting room area prior to physician evaluation. Triage is performed by an experienced nurse using a 5-level ESI triage, where 1 = immediate care, 2 = high-risk, multipleresources needed, 3 = multiple resources needed, 4 = a single resource needed, and 5 = no resources needed [10]. Patients were eligible for enrollment that were triaged as ESI levels 2, 3, or 4 met one or more of the inclusion criteria O.A. Soremekun et al. and were expected to wait in the waiting room. Patients were included if they gave informed consent to be enrolled in this study and received triage POC laboratory testing. Patients were included who met any of the following criteria: (1) chest pain or shortness of breath in patients older than 40 years, (2) possible infection in the presence of two or more SIRS criteria (by vital signs only) in patients older than 18 years, and (3) older patients (N 65 years of age) with nontraumatic complaints [11]. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Exclusion criteria were known pregnancy, in police custody, or an inability to provide informed consent. Because of overlapping criteria, patients could be members of one or more study groups. These speci?c groups of patients were chosen because of their ease of identi?cation, high potential for unexpected laboratory results, and for whom POC laboratory results could lead to a change in triage level or management. Patients who were triaged to the waiting room were enrolled as a convenience sample when the study nurse was present. The study nurse was not involved at all in the triage or management of patients in the waiting room. Enrollment was performed during the hours of 1 PM to 11 PM to correspond to episodes of high patient volume to increase the likelihood that patients would be triaged to the waiting area. After completing study forms and obtaining patient consent, the study nurse drew blood by either a single stick or placed an intravenous line and collected a series of samples that could be used for care in the main ED to avoid additional needle sticks. POC laboratory testing was done using the i-STAT system (Abbott Point of Care, Princeton, NJ). The following labs were performed: (1) chest pain or shortness of breath in patients older than 40 years: CHEM8+, hemoglobin (Hgb), troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), lactate; (2) possible infection with two or more SIRS criteria: CHEM8+, Hgb, lactate; and 3) older adults (N 65 years of age) with non-traumatic complaints: CHEM8+, Hgb, troponin, lactate. The range in time it took to run all the tests and obtain results varied by test from 2 to 10 minutes, according to the manufacturer’s speci?cations. The Pathology department at the study site validated the i-STAT system and set the normal ranges for each of the POC tests based on already established test ranges. POC results were given to the triage nurse who performed the initial triage evaluation by the study nurse. The triage nurse acted upon the laboratory results as clinically warranted. For patients who met criteria for multiple inclusion groups, the more comprehensive set of POC laboratory tests was obtained. Several data points were captured on each patient, including demographics, comorbid conditions, triage levels, and ED census at the time of enrollment, which was used as a proxy for ED crowding [12]. In addition, a survey was conducted with the consent of the triage nurse who received the POC results. The survey queried the helpfulness of the results, and any changes in levels of clinical concern, triage levels, or clinical management. The triage nurse survey is provided as an online Appendix. POC testing in ED triage In this pilot study, our goal was to enroll a total of 300 patients, with a minimum enrollment of 50 patients per study group. The primary outcomes of the study were the presence of any abnormal laboratory values which included: (1) troponin-I level N .05 ng/mL, (2) Hgb b 9 g/dL, (3) glucose N 300 mmol/L or b 50 mmol/L, (4) sodium level b 130 mmol/L or N 150 mmol/L, (5) lactate level N 3.0 mmol/L, (6) potassium level N 5.5 mmoL/L or b 3.0 mmol/L, (7) bicarbonate level b 20 mmol/L, (8) anion gap N 15 mmol/L, and (9) BNP N 100 pg/mL. The normal ranges for each POC test was determined by the Pathology department at the study site. Data were entered from paper study forms into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Redmond, WA) and were imported into Stata v. 11 (College Station, TX). The Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania approved this study. Simple descriptive statistics were used to tabulate data. Data were strati?ed by ESI level to assess if triage nurses were more likely to change management for a given ESI level. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare groups. In addition, we tested if patients were more likely to have abnormal test results at higher levels of ED crowding. We similarly used Fisher’s exact test to assess if management was more likely to be changed or any abnormal POC test result was more likely in four quartiles of ED census, which was used as a proxy for ED crowding. P b .05 was considered signi?cant. No hypothesis testing was conducted across the study groups because patients could meet inclusion criteria for more than one group. This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Abbott Point of Care, Inc. 3. Results A total of 300 patients were enrolled over a 12-month period. The average age was 57 years, 41% were men, and 72% were black. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research (Table 1) Overall, POC lab results were reported as helpful to the triage nurse in 56% of the patients with POC results increasing the level of concern in 16%, changing the management in 14%, and led to 6% of patients being brought back for rapid physician evaluation. After the POC results, 11 (4%) of 286 had their triage levels increased to higher acuity levels (10 were triaged from ESI 3 to 2 and one from an ESI 4 to 2) and 29 (10%) of 286 were triaged from ESI 2 to an ESI 3. Similar results were seen across study groups (see Table 2). We compared ESI 2 and ESI 3 patients to assess if there were any signi?cant differences in helpfulness of the POC results (58% v. 55%, P = .28), change of the triage level (19% v. 21%, P = .70), or change in management (8% v. 17%, P = .06) based on POC results: none were signi?cantly different. We also assessed whether quartiles of ED census were associated with any differences in helpfulness, changing the triage level, or management. None of these comparisons were signi?cant. A total of 152 patients had one 293 Table 1 Demographics of the study population (n = 300) Mean (±SD) Age Male Race White Black Other Pre-POC triage level 2 3 4 Comorbid conditions Hypertension Coronary artery disease Diabetes Active smoker Hypercholesterolemia Family history of coronary disease ED census (median, IQR) 57 years (16) 122 (40.7%) 68 (22.7%) 215 (71.7%) 17 (5.3%) 111 (37.0%) 184 (61.3%) 5 (1.7%) 157 (52.3%) 19 (6.3%) 73 (24.3%) 24 (8.0%) 42 (14.0%) 7 (2.3%) 66 (59–73) IQR, interquartile range. or more abnormal POC lab results (see Table 2). A total of 69 (62%) of 111 of patients triaged as ESI 2 had at least one or more abnormal test results as compared to 81/184 (44%) of patients triaged as ESI 3, P = .006. 3.1. Limitations This study has several limitations. The ?rst is that it was conducted as a convenience sample of patients at a single study site with high levels of ED crowding: an average census of 66 patients in an ED with 41 licensed ED beds. This may have caused us to over-estimate the prevalence of positive ?ndings in the waiting room because in other less crowded settings, such a high-risk patient population may not be triaged to wait. One of the reasons we may not have found any differences by ED crowding is that we sampled patients during the most crowded times, so there may not have been suf?cient instances of “low-crowding” to show any differences across groups. Another factor that limits the generalizability of the ?ndings is that triage-levels themselves do not have particularly high inter-rater reliability, as might triage decision-making with or without POC laboratory tests. However, ESI, which is used at the study site, has been shown to be more reliable than other systems [13,14]. We also relied on triage nurses’ clinical judgments about the helpfulness of triage POC results, which may not be an ideal standard for the clinical value of the result. We only enrolled a small number of patients in this pilot study and our group of patients with possible infection and two or more SIRS criteria was the smallest (n = 50). We may have had different results had we enrolled a larger number of patients; however, it is not possible to estimate how precisely this would have changed our results. Finally, while we report the role of 294 O.A. Soremekun et al. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Table 2 How POC tests were used, helpful or changed clinical management Chest pain or shortness of breath in patients N 40 y (n = 184) Management changes/clinical perception Increased level of concern Decreased level of concern Increased the triage level ? Decreased the triage level ? Changed management in any way Brought patient back faster POC lab results reported as “helpful” to triage nurse Positive result rates Troponin (N 0.05 mmol/L) B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (N 100 pg/dL) Glucose (N 300 mmol/L or b 50 mmol/L) Lactate level N 3.0 mmol/L Potassium level N 5.5 mmol/L or b 3.0 mmol/L Sodium level (b 130 mmol/L or N 150 mmol/L) Bicarbonate level (b 20 mmol/L) Anion Gap N 15 Hemoglobin (b 9.0 g/dL) Any positive result 32 7 6 22 26 (17.4%) (3.8%) (3.4%) (12.4%) (14.1%) Suspected infection and 2 + SIRS (n = 50) Older adults (AgeN65) with non-traumatic complaints (n = 91) 9 1 1 4 7 13 7 5 7 12 (14.3%) (7.7%) (5.7%) (8.0%) (13.2%) 48 (16.0%) 15 (5.0%) 11 (4.2%) 29 (10.1%) 41 (13.7%) 4 (8.0%) 26 (52.0%) 3 (3.3%) 51 (56.0%) 18 (6.0%) 167 (55.6%) 14 (7.7%) 51 (27.7%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (6.0%) 5 (5.5%) 11 (12.1%) 19 (6.3%) 52 (17.3%) 12 (6.5%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (1.1%) 13 (4.3%) 9 (4.9%) 11 (6.0%) 1 (2.0%) 5 (5.0%) 1 (4.4%) 4 (4.4%) 14 (4.7%) 19 (6.3%) 1 (0.5%) 3 (6.0%) 2 (2.2%) 5 (1.7%) 3 (1.6%) – 3 (3.3%) 5 (1.7%) 21 (23.1%) 6 (6.6%) 42 (46.2%) 73 (24.3%) 9 (3.0%) 152 (50.7%) 12 (6.5%) 105 (57.1%) 48 (26.1%) 3 (1.6%) 107 (58.2%) (18.0%) (2.0%) (2.3%) (9.1%) (14.0%) Total (n = 300) 10 (20.0%) 1 (2.0%) 21 (42.0%) ? n = 286. triage POC results in changing triage levels and waiting room management, the study was not designed to measure the impact of these changes on clinical outcomes. 4. Discussion We found that POC testing was reported to be helpful to the triage nurse in more than half of patients in this pilot study; and a change in patient management or triage level in a signi?cant number of patients being sent to the waiting room (14% and 15% respectively). POC results expedited physician evaluation in 6% of patients because those patients were placed in main ED rooms sooner. This suggests our current ESI triage procedure may miss clinically signi?cant ?ndings in about 1 in 20 patients in this population. In our experience, the key advantage to POC over our standard lab is the shorter turnaround time. Given the limited steps from blood draw to results with POC testing, the turnaround time at our institution was much shorter when compared to standard lab testing. This short turnaround time allows for the triage nurse to easily incorporate the results into their triage decisions and waiting room management. For departments with short standard lab turnaround times, incorporating laboratory testing into the triage process using standard labs may be an alternative to POC lab testing. On the surface, it may appear that even in high-risk ED populations in a crowded ED setting, POC laboratory test results infrequently change triage levels or management decisions, casting doubt on whether POC tests are a useful adjunct at triage. However, an alternative viewpoint is that management changes in 15% of patients who were triaged as safe to wait is clinically important, particularly for the 6% of patients whose results prompted expedited care or the 4% whose acuity level was upgraded from ESI 3 to ESI 2 because of abnormal test results. The value of individual elements of the history or vital signs in assessing triage is not well-studied. Age, vital signs, and a need for timely interventions have been associated with nurses assigning triage ESI 2, while expected numbers of resources are the major reason for assigning ESI 3 [15]. When comparing actual resource utilization, ESI 2 patients are more likely to require cardiac monitoring, electrocardiogram, medications, and specialty consultation than ESI 3 patients [16]. These studies suggest that the risk of decline and intervention differentiate ESI 2 from 3. Our study was meaningful different from these because we speci?cally addressed the incremental value of POC labs at triage. This was in the context of an experienced clinician already having POC testing in ED triage evaluated a patient as safe for the ED waiting room using an ESI triage system that is based on historical and some physiological information, speci?cally vital signs [10]. In pediatric patients, vital signs alone have been shown to be helpful in distinguishing serious i … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more

WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research

WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research I need help with a Article Writing question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn. NURSING SCIENCE Competencies: 724.8.5: Foundations of Inquiry – The graduate differentiates between quality improvement processes, evidence based practice and research. 724.8.6 Literature Review and Analysis – The graduate demonstrates knowledge of the process and outcomes of conducting a literature review. 724.8.7: Ethics and Research – The graduate demonstrates understanding of the ethics of nursing research particularly human subjects’ protections, informed consent and alignment with patient and family values and preferences. 724.8.8: Patient Outcomes – The graduate discriminates between identified standards and practices that do not provide improvements in patient outcomes utilizing relevant sources of evidence and the application of nursing theory. 724.8.9: Data Collection, Analysis, and Dissemination – The graduate describes the process of data collection, analysis and implementation of evidence that can improve clinical practice from an interprofessional perspective. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Introduction: There are many sources of information available on the web and in journals relating to the nursing discipline. Therefore, it is of pivotal importance to understand the basic tenets of critical appraisal of research for its use in intraprofessional healthcare practices. The aim of evidence-based practice (EBP) is to employ a three-pronged approach blending the best available research evidence, patient values and preferences, and clinical expertise. In this task, you will critique two primary research evidence sources. You will select one quantitative and one qualitative peer-reviewed journal article on a healthcare topic of interest. The rubric provides detailed criteria for evaluating your submission. You are expected to use the rubric to direct the creation of your submission. Each requirement below may be evaluated by more than one rubric aspect. The rubric aspect titles may contain hyperlinks to relevant portions of the course. A. Evaluate a primary quantitative research peer-reviewed journal article ( suggested length of 3–5 pages ) that has healthcare implications by doing the following: 1. Identify how the researcher addresses the five following areas of the selected journal article, using the attached “Evidence Table”: • background or introduction • review of the literature • discussion of methodology • data analysis • researcher’s conclusion 2. Critique whether the evidence presented in each section of the journal article supports the researcher’s conclusion. Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address A1. A2-A5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. Note: Try to think about how the first four sections in the A1 table support the fifth section, the conclusion. 3. Explain the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations of the journal article. 4. Identify strengths and limitations of the study. 5. Describe how the evidence informs nursing practice. B. Evaluate a primary qualitative research peer-reviewed journal article ( suggested length of 3–5 pages ) that has healthcare implications by doing the following: 1. Identify how the researcher addresses the five following areas of the selected journal article, using the attached “Evidence Table”: • background or introduction • review of the literature • discussion of methodology • data analysis • researcher’s conclusion 2. Critique whether the evidence presented in each section of the journal article supports the researcher’s conclusion. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address B1. B2-B5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. Note: Try to think about how the first four sections in the B1 table support the fifth section, the conclusion. 3. Explain the protection of human subjects and cultural considerations of the journal article. 4. Identify strengths and limitations of the study. 5. Describe how the evidence informs nursing practice. C. Acknowledge sources, using APA-formatted in-text citations and references, for content that is quoted, paraphrased, or summarized. AT LEAST 3 PAGES FOR QUANTITATIVE AND 3 PAGES FOR QUALITATIVE ARTICLES evidence_table.docx qualitative_point_of_care_triage.pdf quantitative_human_trafficking.pdf xap_task_1_rubric.doc ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS XAP1: Evidence Based Practice and Applied Nursing Research REV: 012018 Evidence-Based Practice and Applied Nursing Research Evidence Table A1 Quantitative Article: (Indicate primary evidence chosen with an APA citation) Background or Introduction Review of the Literature Discussion of Methodology Data Analysis Researcher’s Conclusion Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address A1. A2-A5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. B1 Qualitative Article: (Indicate primary evidence chosen with an APA citation) Background or Introduction Review of the Literature Discussion of Methodology Data Analysis Researcher’s Conclusion Note: The attached “Evidence Table” may be used to address B1. B2-B5 may be addressed on the same page under the table. PAGE 1 American Journal of Emergency Medicine (2013) 31, 291–296 www.elsevier.com/locate/ajem Original Contribution Utility of point-of-care testing in ED triage?,?? Olanrewaju A. Soremekun MD, MBA a,?, Elizabeth M. Datner MD a , Simon Banh RN, BSN a , Lance B. Becker MD a , Jesse M. Pines MD, MBA, MSCE b a Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA 19104 Departments of Emergency Medicine and Health Policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC b Received 1 June 2012; revised 28 June 2012; accepted 20 July 2012 Abstract Background: Triage systems are commonly used in emergency departments (ED) to prioritize patients. Laboratory testing is not typically used to help risk-stratify patients at triage. Objectives: We studied the utility of point-of-care (POC) testing at triage in ED patients with high-risk complaints. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study on a convenience sample of ED patients at an urban academic hospital with 60,000 annual visits. Patients who were triaged to the waiting area with any of the following criteria were approached for enrollment: (1) chest pain or shortness of breath in patients older than 40 years, (2) possible infection in the presence of two or more systemic inflammatory response system criteria in patients older than 18 years, and (3) patients N 65 years with non-traumatic complaints. A total of 300 subjects were enrolled. All enrolled patients received POC testing that included a combination of Chem8+, hemoglobin, troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, and lactate. The triage nurse completed a survey after receiving the results. Results: POC results was reported to be helpful in 56% of patients, changed the triage level in 15% of patients and led to 6% of patients being brought back for rapid physician evaluation. Overall, 50% of patients had one or more abnormal POC laboratory tests. There was no relationship between ED census and the likelihood of being helpful, changing the triage level, changing management, or bringing patients back any faster. Conclusion: POC testing at triage is a helpful adjunct in triage of patients with high-risk ED complaints. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Triage systems are used commonly in hospital-based emergency departments (ED) to prioritize patients with ? Prior Presentations: No. Financial Support: Abbott Point-of-Care, Princeton NJ. ? Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 215 615 3477.WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research E-mail address: [email protected] (O.A. Soremekun). ?? 0735-6757/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.025 regard to severity of illness and resource needs. The need for triage is borne out of periods where resources (ie, staff or space) become constrained, requiring newly arriving patients to wait. Effective triage systems are especially important in settings with prolonged wait times. Commonly, an experienced nurse considering the presenting complaint, overall appearance, comorbidities, and vital signs assigns a triage level. More recently, some EDs are incorporating physician triage and advance triage protocols into their traditional triage systems to improve triage accuracy and effectiveness 292 [1]. The most commonly used triage system in the United States is the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), which has 5 levels, with level 1 corresponding to the highest acuity, most resource-intensive patients and level 5 corresponding to the lowest acuity, least resource-intensive patients [2,3]. Although the incorporation of physician or nursinginitiated orders in triage is becoming common place, the main focus of these interventions in the published literature has been the role of early orders in reducing the total length of stay and ED bed time with no data reported on the impact on patient safety or the quality of the triage process [4,5]. Given typical laboratory turnaround times, incorporating laboratory results into the triage of patients with high-risk complaints has been very limited. To date, none of the current triage systems integrate laboratory results into assigning triage levels. Integrating laboratory testing into triage presents an opportunity to increase the accuracy of triage by helping enhance risk-strati?cation. Historically, laboratory results have been logistically dif?cult to obtain and incorporate into triage systems because results are not immediately available. Recently, newly available point-ofcare (POC) testing with handheld devices presents an opportunity to add important clinical information to the ED triage process to help identify patients who need immediate care or could potentially wait for longer periods of time. Several studies have explored the feasibility of using POC testing in pre-hospital settings or at ED triage [6-9]; however, to our knowledge, no studies have tested the impact on patient management or value of this information to triage nurses. We assessed the utility of POC testing in patients who were triaged to the waiting area who had potentially high-risk complaints: chest pain, shortness of breath, possible infection with two or more systemic in?ammatory response system (SIRS) criteria, and older adults with non-traumatic complaints. We determined the rates of abnormal POC laboratory results and how this information impacted waiting area management decisions. 2. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on a convenience sample of ED patients who were triaged to the waiting room area at a single inner-city academic hospital. The hospital sees approximately 60,000 annual patient visits per year and has a 4-year emergency medicine residency training program. At the study site, there are periods during peak times, in which patients wait for prolonged periods of time in the waiting room area prior to physician evaluation. Triage is performed by an experienced nurse using a 5-level ESI triage, where 1 = immediate care, 2 = high-risk, multipleresources needed, 3 = multiple resources needed, 4 = a single resource needed, and 5 = no resources needed [10]. Patients were eligible for enrollment that were triaged as ESI levels 2, 3, or 4 met one or more of the inclusion criteria O.A. Soremekun et al. and were expected to wait in the waiting room. Patients were included if they gave informed consent to be enrolled in this study and received triage POC laboratory testing. Patients were included who met any of the following criteria: (1) chest pain or shortness of breath in patients older than 40 years, (2) possible infection in the presence of two or more SIRS criteria (by vital signs only) in patients older than 18 years, and (3) older patients (N 65 years of age) with nontraumatic complaints [11]. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Exclusion criteria were known pregnancy, in police custody, or an inability to provide informed consent. Because of overlapping criteria, patients could be members of one or more study groups. These speci?c groups of patients were chosen because of their ease of identi?cation, high potential for unexpected laboratory results, and for whom POC laboratory results could lead to a change in triage level or management. Patients who were triaged to the waiting room were enrolled as a convenience sample when the study nurse was present. The study nurse was not involved at all in the triage or management of patients in the waiting room. Enrollment was performed during the hours of 1 PM to 11 PM to correspond to episodes of high patient volume to increase the likelihood that patients would be triaged to the waiting area. After completing study forms and obtaining patient consent, the study nurse drew blood by either a single stick or placed an intravenous line and collected a series of samples that could be used for care in the main ED to avoid additional needle sticks. POC laboratory testing was done using the i-STAT system (Abbott Point of Care, Princeton, NJ). The following labs were performed: (1) chest pain or shortness of breath in patients older than 40 years: CHEM8+, hemoglobin (Hgb), troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), lactate; (2) possible infection with two or more SIRS criteria: CHEM8+, Hgb, lactate; and 3) older adults (N 65 years of age) with non-traumatic complaints: CHEM8+, Hgb, troponin, lactate. The range in time it took to run all the tests and obtain results varied by test from 2 to 10 minutes, according to the manufacturer’s speci?cations. The Pathology department at the study site validated the i-STAT system and set the normal ranges for each of the POC tests based on already established test ranges. POC results were given to the triage nurse who performed the initial triage evaluation by the study nurse. The triage nurse acted upon the laboratory results as clinically warranted. For patients who met criteria for multiple inclusion groups, the more comprehensive set of POC laboratory tests was obtained. Several data points were captured on each patient, including demographics, comorbid conditions, triage levels, and ED census at the time of enrollment, which was used as a proxy for ED crowding [12]. In addition, a survey was conducted with the consent of the triage nurse who received the POC results. The survey queried the helpfulness of the results, and any changes in levels of clinical concern, triage levels, or clinical management. The triage nurse survey is provided as an online Appendix. POC testing in ED triage In this pilot study, our goal was to enroll a total of 300 patients, with a minimum enrollment of 50 patients per study group. The primary outcomes of the study were the presence of any abnormal laboratory values which included: (1) troponin-I level N .05 ng/mL, (2) Hgb b 9 g/dL, (3) glucose N 300 mmol/L or b 50 mmol/L, (4) sodium level b 130 mmol/L or N 150 mmol/L, (5) lactate level N 3.0 mmol/L, (6) potassium level N 5.5 mmoL/L or b 3.0 mmol/L, (7) bicarbonate level b 20 mmol/L, (8) anion gap N 15 mmol/L, and (9) BNP N 100 pg/mL. The normal ranges for each POC test was determined by the Pathology department at the study site. Data were entered from paper study forms into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Redmond, WA) and were imported into Stata v. 11 (College Station, TX). The Institutional Review Board at the University of Pennsylvania approved this study. Simple descriptive statistics were used to tabulate data. Data were strati?ed by ESI level to assess if triage nurses were more likely to change management for a given ESI level. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare groups. In addition, we tested if patients were more likely to have abnormal test results at higher levels of ED crowding. We similarly used Fisher’s exact test to assess if management was more likely to be changed or any abnormal POC test result was more likely in four quartiles of ED census, which was used as a proxy for ED crowding. P b .05 was considered signi?cant. No hypothesis testing was conducted across the study groups because patients could meet inclusion criteria for more than one group. This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Abbott Point of Care, Inc. 3. Results A total of 300 patients were enrolled over a 12-month period. The average age was 57 years, 41% were men, and 72% were black. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research (Table 1) Overall, POC lab results were reported as helpful to the triage nurse in 56% of the patients with POC results increasing the level of concern in 16%, changing the management in 14%, and led to 6% of patients being brought back for rapid physician evaluation. After the POC results, 11 (4%) of 286 had their triage levels increased to higher acuity levels (10 were triaged from ESI 3 to 2 and one from an ESI 4 to 2) and 29 (10%) of 286 were triaged from ESI 2 to an ESI 3. Similar results were seen across study groups (see Table 2). We compared ESI 2 and ESI 3 patients to assess if there were any signi?cant differences in helpfulness of the POC results (58% v. 55%, P = .28), change of the triage level (19% v. 21%, P = .70), or change in management (8% v. 17%, P = .06) based on POC results: none were signi?cantly different. We also assessed whether quartiles of ED census were associated with any differences in helpfulness, changing the triage level, or management. None of these comparisons were signi?cant. A total of 152 patients had one 293 Table 1 Demographics of the study population (n = 300) Mean (±SD) Age Male Race White Black Other Pre-POC triage level 2 3 4 Comorbid conditions Hypertension Coronary artery disease Diabetes Active smoker Hypercholesterolemia Family history of coronary disease ED census (median, IQR) 57 years (16) 122 (40.7%) 68 (22.7%) 215 (71.7%) 17 (5.3%) 111 (37.0%) 184 (61.3%) 5 (1.7%) 157 (52.3%) 19 (6.3%) 73 (24.3%) 24 (8.0%) 42 (14.0%) 7 (2.3%) 66 (59–73) IQR, interquartile range. or more abnormal POC lab results (see Table 2). A total of 69 (62%) of 111 of patients triaged as ESI 2 had at least one or more abnormal test results as compared to 81/184 (44%) of patients triaged as ESI 3, P = .006. 3.1. Limitations This study has several limitations. The ?rst is that it was conducted as a convenience sample of patients at a single study site with high levels of ED crowding: an average census of 66 patients in an ED with 41 licensed ED beds. This may have caused us to over-estimate the prevalence of positive ?ndings in the waiting room because in other less crowded settings, such a high-risk patient population may not be triaged to wait. One of the reasons we may not have found any differences by ED crowding is that we sampled patients during the most crowded times, so there may not have been suf?cient instances of “low-crowding” to show any differences across groups. Another factor that limits the generalizability of the ?ndings is that triage-levels themselves do not have particularly high inter-rater reliability, as might triage decision-making with or without POC laboratory tests. However, ESI, which is used at the study site, has been shown to be more reliable than other systems [13,14]. We also relied on triage nurses’ clinical judgments about the helpfulness of triage POC results, which may not be an ideal standard for the clinical value of the result. We only enrolled a small number of patients in this pilot study and our group of patients with possible infection and two or more SIRS criteria was the smallest (n = 50). We may have had different results had we enrolled a larger number of patients; however, it is not possible to estimate how precisely this would have changed our results. Finally, while we report the role of 294 O.A. Soremekun et al. WGU C361 Evidence based practice and applied nursing research Table 2 How POC tests were used, helpful or changed clinical management Chest pain or shortness of breath in patients N 40 y (n = 184) Management changes/clinical perception Increased level of concern Decreased level of concern Increased the triage level ? Decreased the triage level ? Changed management in any way Brought patient back faster POC lab results reported as “helpful” to triage nurse Positive result rates Troponin (N 0.05 mmol/L) B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (N 100 pg/dL) Glucose (N 300 mmol/L or b 50 mmol/L) Lactate level N 3.0 mmol/L Potassium level N 5.5 mmol/L or b 3.0 mmol/L Sodium level (b 130 mmol/L or N 150 mmol/L) Bicarbonate level (b 20 mmol/L) Anion Gap N 15 Hemoglobin (b 9.0 g/dL) Any positive result 32 7 6 22 26 (17.4%) (3.8%) (3.4%) (12.4%) (14.1%) Suspected infection and 2 + SIRS (n = 50) Older adults (AgeN65) with non-traumatic complaints (n = 91) 9 1 1 4 7 13 7 5 7 12 (14.3%) (7.7%) (5.7%) (8.0%) (13.2%) 48 (16.0%) 15 (5.0%) 11 (4.2%) 29 (10.1%) 41 (13.7%) 4 (8.0%) 26 (52.0%) 3 (3.3%) 51 (56.0%) 18 (6.0%) 167 (55.6%) 14 (7.7%) 51 (27.7%) 1 (2.0%) 3 (6.0%) 5 (5.5%) 11 (12.1%) 19 (6.3%) 52 (17.3%) 12 (6.5%) 1 (2.0%) 1 (1.1%) 13 (4.3%) 9 (4.9%) 11 (6.0%) 1 (2.0%) 5 (5.0%) 1 (4.4%) 4 (4.4%) 14 (4.7%) 19 (6.3%) 1 (0.5%) 3 (6.0%) 2 (2.2%) 5 (1.7%) 3 (1.6%) – 3 (3.3%) 5 (1.7%) 21 (23.1%) 6 (6.6%) 42 (46.2%) 73 (24.3%) 9 (3.0%) 152 (50.7%) 12 (6.5%) 105 (57.1%) 48 (26.1%) 3 (1.6%) 107 (58.2%) (18.0%) (2.0%) (2.3%) (9.1%) (14.0%) Total (n = 300) 10 (20.0%) 1 (2.0%) 21 (42.0%) ? n = 286. triage POC results in changing triage levels and waiting room management, the study was not designed to measure the impact of these changes on clinical outcomes. 4. Discussion We found that POC testing was reported to be helpful to the triage nurse in more than half of patients in this pilot study; and a change in patient management or triage level in a signi?cant number of patients being sent to the waiting room (14% and 15% respectively). POC results expedited physician evaluation in 6% of patients because those patients were placed in main ED rooms sooner. This suggests our current ESI triage procedure may miss clinically signi?cant ?ndings in about 1 in 20 patients in this population. In our experience, the key advantage to POC over our standard lab is the shorter turnaround time. Given the limited steps from blood draw to results with POC testing, the turnaround time at our institution was much shorter when compared to standard lab testing. This short turnaround time allows for the triage nurse to easily incorporate the results into their triage decisions and waiting room management. For departments with short standard lab turnaround times, incorporating laboratory testing into the triage process using standard labs may be an alternative to POC lab testing. On the surface, it may appear that even in high-risk ED populations in a crowded ED setting, POC laboratory test results infrequently change triage levels or management decisions, casting doubt on whether POC tests are a useful adjunct at triage. However, an alternative viewpoint is that management changes in 15% of patients who were triaged as safe to wait is clinically important, particularly for the 6% of patients whose results prompted expedited care or the 4% whose acuity level was upgraded from ESI 3 to ESI 2 because of abnormal test results. The value of individual elements of the history or vital signs in assessing triage is not well-studied. Age, vital signs, and a need for timely interventions have been associated with nurses assigning triage ESI 2, while expected numbers of resources are the major reason for assigning ESI 3 [15]. When comparing actual resource utilization, ESI 2 patients are more likely to require cardiac monitoring, electrocardiogram, medications, and specialty consultation than ESI 3 patients [16]. These studies suggest that the risk of decline and intervention differentiate ESI 2 from 3. Our study was meaningful different from these because we speci?cally addressed the incremental value of POC labs at triage. This was in the context of an experienced clinician already having POC testing in ED triage evaluated a patient as safe for the ED waiting room using an ESI triage system that is based on historical and some physiological information, speci?cally vital signs [10]. In pediatric patients, vital signs alone have been shown to be helpful in distinguishing serious i … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . 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