New grads show off their evidence-based practice skills
Evidence based practice (EBP) is a vital part of nursing today. By using current research to guide their practice, nurses can be confident that the care they are giving is based on the best practice guidelines currently available, and patients can be sure that they are receiving the best care possible.
At AAMC, a portion of our Nursing Graduate Internship (NGI) is focused on coaching our new grad nurses through what is often their first EBP project. As they set forth on their nursing career at AAMC, we encourage these new nurses to continually integrate current research into their practice to promote improved interventions, care, and patient outcomes.
On Dec. 2, the Nursing Graduates (Feb 2010 cohort) presented their Evidence Based Practice Projects to staff. Bravo to our new grads for their fine work! Their research question and findings are below:
Final Filters: Kristen Wesley, RN (PCU) and Tom Radcliffe, RN (ED)
Question: Does the use of a final filter with all IVPB infusions reduce the number of patients who develop phlebitis?
Findings: Literature review suggeststhe numbers of patients who develop phlebitis were decreased when a final filter was used with all VPB infusions. Also cost effective $25.00 to start a new IV versus $1.00 per filter.
Hourly Rounds: Etta Fulton, RN (MSU), Tiffany Oates, RN (SCU), and Kate Jorgensen, RN (MSU)
Question: In the Medical Surgical patient population, does hourly rounds by nurses and patient care technicians improve patient satisfaction and increase patient safety?
Findings: Literature review suggests Hourly rounds decreased use of call lights, falls, use of restraints, and need for attendants and increased patient satisfaction.
Question: In an acute care setting, does SBAR handoff communication positively influence patient safety outcomes as compared with traditional communication for reporting?
Findings: Literature review suggestsSBAR reduced incidents of missed information, prevented errors reducing the number of sentinel events, and improved patient safety.
Surgical Hand Asepsis: Micheline Holmes, RN (ACP OR) and Stephanie Montgomery, RN (ACP OR)
Question: Is waterless surgical asepsis as effective in reducing microorganisms on the hands and forearms, compared to surgical hand scrub?
Findings: Literature review suggests surgical hand scrub and waterless/scrubless solution on the hands are both effective in lowering bacterial count on the skin.
Heparin vs. Saline Flush: Carly Cross – Onco, RN (PCU) and Rachel Sienkiewich, RN (PCU)
Question: How does flushing with heparin vs. normal saline affect catheter patency and what possible complications may arise?
Findings: Literature review suggestsHeparin and normal saline are equally effective in preventing catheter occlusions. Normal saline is not associated with the adverse side effects of heparin and is more cost effective. Literature suggests that positive pressure catheters may be more effective in maintaining catheter patency without heparin.
Artificial Nutrition and Hydration in an Actively Dying Patient: Phoebe Eilenberg, RN (ONC) and Amanda Bissett, RN (ONC)
Question: In actively dying adult patients, what is the effect of artificial nutrition and hydration on quality of life?
Findings: Literature review suggests these interventions are not beneficial to the patient’s quality of life, and in fact, can adversely affect each body system.
Early Enteral Feeding in the Critically Ill: Kaitlin George, RN (CCU), Kara Metzler, RN (CCU) and Kim Moulden, RN (CCU)
Question: In the ventilator supported critical care patient, what is the effect of early enteral feeding on positive patient outcomes as compared with delaying the initiation of enteral nutrition?
Findings: Literature suggests early delivery of 60-70% of goal nutrition within 48 hours of admission is associated with reduced length of stay, time on the ventilator, and infectious complications.