Nursing Critical Analysis of Literature

This assignment requires students to critically analyze existing nursing literature. The task involves identifying relevant research articles (within the past 5-7 years) focusing on a specific topic in nursing. Students must then demonstrate their understanding of the topic by synthesizing information from various sources, evaluating the quality and credibility of the evidence presented, and drawing conclusions based on the analyzed literature. The assignment emphasizes coherent argumentation, logical development of ideas, and adherence to APA 6th edition referencing style.

School of Nursing & Midwifery
Assessment 3
Project
Part B
NSG3NCR – Nursing: Reflective Clinical Practice
2017
Name:
Due Date:
Campus/Clinical
School:
*PLEASE USE THIS TEMPLATE TO UPLOAD YOUR
ASSIGNMENT *
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 1 of 7

Section 1. Planning
Patient safety and quality of care goes hand in hand in healthcare. Incidences of falls are
found to be more common in case of geriatric patients compared to younger ones. Therefore, as per
the guidelines laid down by the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, it is pivotal to
prevent falls and harm from falls. Recognition and response to clinical deterioration in acute
healthcare must also be maintained as per the guideline (Safetyandquality.gov.au, 2017). The main
objective of this project will be to abate and minimize the incidence of falls in elderly people through
education streamlined for the nurses.
The intended audience will be the nurses comprising of the Registered Nurses, Enrolled
Nurses and Trainee Nurses appointed at the geriatric unit within a clinical setting in a hospital.
Quality and Safety Committee will be the governing body supervising the proceedings of the
proposed project in a legally appropriate manner.
The intended audience will be made aware about:
 Importance of abiding by the professional standards and code of conduct in professional
practice
 Risk factors associated with falls in geriatric patients
 Strategies to minimize the incidence of falls in the elderly
 Value of risk assessment in fall prevention among the elderly
For the sake of presentation, PowerPoint format will be chosen. Empirical findings have
suggested the utility of this kind of presentation as an empowering educational tool that might
be beneficial to render awareness about the chosen topic to the target audience in a befitting
manner (Nowak, Speakman & Sayers, 2016).
In order to determine whether the intended message has been conveyed satisfactorily to
the target audience, a questionnaire survey method will be employed. Questionnaire is
considered as a powerful research tool that has the potential of informing about one’s
evaluation and hence will aid in assessing whether the message has been understood and
received by the target audience (Patten, 2016).
Section 2. Presenting your research
(Provided in separate pdf document)
Section 3. Seeking Feedback
In post presentation session pertaining to the topic, a paper based evaluation tool consisting
of certain closed-ended questions in a questionnaire will be handed over to the audience to share
their feedback. Accumulation of data from a large audience is made possible through this
questionnaire survey where the respondents may share their experience in general by responding to
certain preset questions (Rowley, 2014). Specifically post-activity questionnaire will be used to rate
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 2 of 7

the effectiveness associated with the various elements of the presentation workshop as perceived
by the participants through critical reflection.
Section 4. Literature Review
For initiating suitable changes related to clinical practice, it is necessary to conduct a proper
literature review of related and relevant documents. In this case, in order to offer an insight on the
available practices and related data regarding the chosen topic, pertinent databases such as CINAHL,
MEDLINE and Scopus will be utilized with suitable keywords such as ‘falls prevention’, ‘old patients’.
In course of the discussions, mention will be made regarding the barriers and facilitators to overall
change in clinical practice. Journal articles published within last 5 years will be selected for doing the
literature review on the topic.
A review of findings regarding the prevention of falls in the elderly has revealed that
advancing age predispose an elderly individual to encounter falls more in comparison to younger
people. However, the work by Karlsson et al., (2013) has opined that formulation of structured fall-
preventive program in the elderly people specifically among those who are considered as vulnerable
groups is capable of mitigating both the number of falls as well as the number of faller in the
community. The population is likely to be benefited through other modifications to lifestyle.
Study by Miake-Lye et al., (2013) in their work has highlighted on inpatient falls prevention
program as part of a patient safety strategy whereby several components related to successful
implementation were identified. These includes leadership support, recruitment of frontline staff
during program design, a multidisciplinary committee lead supervision of the program, pilot testing
interventions, falls prevention data through utilization of information technology, training and
education targeted for the staff alongside changes in nihilistic attitude regarding falls abatement.
Moreover, harms association was attributed to use of restraints and sedating drugs in addition to
diminished initiatives by staff taken to mobilize patient.
Further, work by Ungar et al., (2013) has explored the issue of falls prevention in elderly
where recommendations have been made with respect to re-evaluation of drug therapy, adjusting
the doses or catering to the withdrawal symptoms meant for antihypertensive , benzodiazepines
and diuretics . As part of the multifactorial intervention program, American Geriatrics Society has
suggested certain modifications with respect to environmental hazards, training protocols, hip
protectors and correct application of support tools. Thus, comprehensive assessment of
cardiovascular and neuroautonmic evaluation with recommendations for balancing exercise might
be effective in tackling the situation through early detection and accurate diagnosis.
Hill et al., (2015) carried out a study to evaluate the effectiveness of individualized fall
prevention education meant for patients alongside training and feedback for staff through a ward-
level program. Findings of the study has brought to the forefront that in combination to usual care,
individualized patient education programs coupled with feedback and training for staff has lead to
the reduction of fall rates in addition to the injurious falls for older patients admitted at the
rehabilitation units in hospitals.
Ambrose, Cruz & Paul, (2015) in their work has examined the issue relevant to falls and
fractures with an insight about the systematic approach that accounts for screening and prevention
through utilization of appropriate screening tools and interventions. Risk factors aligned to falls and
subsequent injury include impaired balance and gait, history of past falls, polypharmacy in addition
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 3 of 7

to others such as female gender, advancing age, visual impairments, environmental factors as well as
cognitive decline, all of which are modifiable.
Milisen et al, (2013) in their work as a multicentre study focused on determining the
feasibility of a practice guideline in order to prevent falls in geriatric wards. Results suggested the
efficacy of implementing the falls prevention guideline into daily practice whereby every unique
discipline hold the opportunity of tackling the risk factor adeptly except for the one concerning
visual impairment. Job division for risk-factor assessment duties alongside interventions from
various healthcare workers, education targeted to patients, recruitment of a fall prevention
coordinator and ultimately development of a suitable fall prevention policy through management
level support from hospital authority is capable of implementing positive changes.
Another interesting study by Hill et al., (2017) has offered an insight on the issue o fear of
falling syndrome among the elderly Mexican population. The perpetual feeling of being in constant
risk for falling without necessarily being at the risk for fall characterizes this syndrome. Overall,
diminished quality of life because of decreased functionality for the elderly patients is observed that
in turn may be attributed to fear of falling as experienced by elderly.
Zecevic et al., (2017) in their work has attended to assessing the barriers and facilitators in
implementation of the Systematic Falls Investigative Method (SFIM) in the hospital units. A cross-
sectional explanatory mixed methods approach was adopted to measure the study outcomes.
Adequate infrastructure, dedicated workforce, prioritization of patient safety in addition to hospital
accreditation contributed as facilitators. Conversely, dearth of time coupled with heavy workloads,
paucity of resources alongside poor communication acted as barriers. Thus, proper regulatory and
organizational support in addition to dedicated frontline staff and assignment of resources for
detecting the direct causes and latent contributing factors that might lead to falls are necessary to
implement SFIM successfully.
Matchar et al., (2017) carried out a study called as the steps to avoid falls in the elderly
(SAFE) by a multi-center, two arm, parallel group, randomized controlled trial research design.
Outcomes of SAFE study revealed that undertaking screening programs alongside risk modification
and intensive, progressive as well as consistent physical therapy accounts for effectively decreasing
the number of fallers and injurious falls, thus suggestive of its feasibility in -practice.
McKenzie et al., (2017) in their work has argued in favour of engaging an interprofessional
teaching team who might support the interprofessional practice teams for reducing falls in older
adults through implementation of evidence-based practice guidelines. The study findings has
highlighted that community programs are capable of supporting the training for interprofessional
teams that might culminate in harbouring optimal outcomes for the older individuals. Increased
awareness, enhanced knowledge and adequate training will facilitate provision of quality care
services for elderly patients who are the risk of falls in clinical setting.
Reference List
Ambrose, A. F., Cruz, L., & Paul, G. (2015). Falls and fractures: a systematic approach to screening
and prevention. Maturitas, 82(1), 85-93. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.06.035
Hill, A. M., McPhail, S. M., Waldron, N., Etherton-Beer, C., Ingram, K., Flicker, L., ... & Haines, T. P.
(2015). Fall rates in hospital rehabilitation units after individualised patient and staff
education programmes: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial.
The Lancet, 385(9987), 2592-2599. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61945-0
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 4 of 7

Hill, A., Waldron, N., Francis-Coad, J., Haines, T. P., Etherton-Beer, C., Flicker, L., ... & McPhail, S.
(2017). STAFF RESPOND POSITIVELY WHEN OLDER PATIENTS ARE PROVIDED WITH FALLS
PREVENTION EDUCATION. Innovation in Aging, 1(suppl_1), 523-523.
doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.1852
Karlsson, M. K., Magnusson, H., von Schewelov, T., & Rosengren, B. E. (2013). Prevention of falls in
the elderly—a review. Osteoporosis international, 24(3), 747-762. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-2256-7
Matchar, D., Duncan, P., Lien, C. T., Ong, M. E., Lee, M., Sim, R., & Eom, K. (2017). FALL PREVENTION
AND REDUCTION: THE STEPS TO AVOID FALLS IN THE ELDERLY (SAFE) STUDY. Innovation in
Aging, 1(suppl_1), 267-267. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igx004.979
McKenzie, G., Lasater, K., Delander, G. E., Neal, M. B., Morgove, M., & Eckstrom, E. (2017). Falls
prevention education: Interprofessional training to enhance collaborative practice.
Gerontology & geriatrics education, 38(2), 232-243. doi: 10.1080/02701960.2015.1127809
Miake-Lye, I. M., Hempel, S., Ganz, D. A., & Shekelle, P. G. (2013). Inpatient Fall Prevention Programs
as a Patient Safety StrategyA Systematic Review. Annals of internal medicine, 158(5_Part_2),
390-396. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00005
Milisen, K., Coussement, J., Arnout, H., Vanlerberghe, V., De Paepe, L., Schoevaerdts, D., ... &
Dejaeger, E. (2013). Feasibility of implementing a practice guideline for fall prevention on
geriatric wards: A multicentre study. International journal of nursing studies, 50(4), 495-507.
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.020
Nowak, M. K., Speakman, E., & Sayers, P. (2016). Evaluating PowerPoint presentations: A
retrospective study examining educational barriers and strategies. Nursing education
perspectives, 37(1), 28-31. doi: 10.5480/14-1418
Nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au. (2017). Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia - Registered nurse
standards for practice. Nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au. Retrieved 27 September 2017, from
http://www.nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au/Codes-Guidelines-Statements/Professional-
standards/registered-nurse-standards-for-practice.aspx
Patten, M. L. (2016). Questionnaire research: A practical guide. Routledge.
Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research Review,
37(3), 308-330. doi: 10.1108/MRR-02-2013-0027
Safetyandquality.gov.au. (2017). National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards.
Safetyandquality.gov.au. Retrieved 27 September 2017, from
https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NSQHS-Standards-
Sept-2012.pdf
Ungar, A., Rafanelli, M., Iacomelli, I., Brunetti, M. A., Ceccofiglio, A., Tesi, F., & Marchionni, N. (2013).
Fall prevention in the elderly. Clinical Cases in mineral and bone metabolism, 10(2), 91.
Zecevic, A. A., Li, A. H. T., Ngo, C., Halligan, M., & Kothari, A. (2017). Improving safety culture in
hospitals: Facilitators and barriers to implementation of Systemic Falls Investigative Method (SFIM).
International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 1-7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx034
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 5 of 7

School of Nursing & Midwifery NSG3NCR – Assessment Rubric – Part B
Criteria Excellent (>80%) Very Good (70 – 79%) Good (60 – 69%) Fair (50 – 59%) Poor (< 50%) Mark
Section 1 – Planning
Development of Project
Plan
(1 x 450 words)
20 marks
16 + marks
 Excellent identification of topic
and objectives
 Clearly identified audience
 Excellent outline of content to be
delivered to audience
 Format for presentation identified
and well supported by relevant
and credible references.
 Evaluation strategy identified and
well supported by literature
 Writing was coherent with logical
development of key ideas.
14 – 15.5 marks
 Very good identification of topic
and objectives
 Identified audience
 Very good outline of content to
be delivered to audience
 Format for presentation identified
and supported by relevant and
credible references
 Evaluation strategy identified and
supported by literature
 Writing was coherent with logical
development of key ideas.
12 – 13.5 marks
 Good identification of topic and
objectives
 Identified audience
 Good outline of content to be
delivered to audience
 Format for presentation identified
and supported by relevant and
credible references
 Evaluation strategy identified and
supported by literature
 Writing was mostly coherent with
logical development of key ideas.
10 – 11.5 marks
 Some identification of topic and
objectives
 Limited identification of audience
 Some outline of content to be
delivered
 Format for presentation
identified but not supported by
literature
 Evaluation strategy poorly
identified and supported by
literature
 Writing had limited coherence
and logical development of key
ideas.
0 – 9.5 marks
 Poor identification of topic and
objectives
 Limited identification of audience.
 No outline of content to be
delivered
 Format for presentation not
identified
 No evaluation strategy presented
 Poorly supported by relevant and
credible references.
 Writing lacked coherence and
logical development of key ideas.
/20
Section 2 – Presenting
Your Research
(1 x 600 words)
30 marks
26 + marks
 Excellent presentation of content
 Detailed, concise description of
area requiring change presented
in the content
 Clearly identified and presented
session outcomes.
 Clear and consistent evidence of
improvement and changes to be
implemented
 Clear articulation of learning
outcomes and application to future
practice
 Writing was coherent with logical
development of key ideas.
24 – 25.5 marks
 Very good presentation of
content
 Description of area requiring
change presented in the content
 Identified and presented session
outcomes.
 Clear and consistent evidence of
improvement and changes to be
implemented
 Predominantly clear articulation of
learning outcomes and application
to future practice.
 Writing was coherent with logical
development of key ideas.
22 – 23.5 marks
 Good presentation of content
 Inconsistent detail in the area
requiring change presented in the
content
 Identified and presented session
outcomes.
 Inconsistent evidence of
improvement and changes to be
implemented
 Mostly clear articulation of learning
outcomes and application to future
practice.
 Writing was mostly coherent with
logical development of key ideas.
20 – 21.5 marks
 Content not well presented
 Description of area requiring
change lacked depth and detail.
 Session outcomes mostly
identified.
 Limited evidence of improvement
and changes to be implemented
 Poor articulation of learning
outcomes and application to future
practice.
 Writing had limited coherence and
logical development of key ideas.
0 – 19.5 marks
 Poor presentation of content
 Description of area requiring
change was very superficial.
 Session outcomes not identified
 Very poor articulation of learning
outcomes and application to future
practice.
 Writing lacked coherence and
logical development of key ideas.
/30
   
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 6 of 7

Section 3 - Seeking
Feedback
Development of
Evaluation tool
(200 words)
10 marks
8 + marks
 Clear, concise & well developed
evaluation tool
 Consistently well supported by
relevant and credible references.
 Writing was coherent with logical
development of key ideas.
7 – 7.5 marks
 Predominantly clear, concise &
well developed evaluation tool
 Predominantly well supported by
relevant and credible references.
 Writing was coherent with logical
development of key ideas.
6 – 6.5 marks
 Mostly clear but may not be
concise evaluation tool
 Inconsistently supported by
relevant and credible references.
 Writing was mostly coherent with
logical development of key ideas.
5 – 5.5 marks
 Superficially developed
evaluation tool
 Poorly supported by relevant and
credible references.
 Writing had limited coherence
and logical development of key
ideas.
0 – 4.5 marks
 Poorly developed evaluation tool.
 Poorly supported by relevant and
credible references.
 Writing lacked coherence and
logical development of key ideas.
/10
Section 4 – Literature
Review
Analysis of Literature
(1 x 1000 words)
40 marks
*identified barriers and
facilitators to change –
and discussed the impact
of these on future practice
** primary source,
professionally-oriented,
peer-reviewed
32 + marks
 Introduction succinctly identifies
the relevance, scope and focus of
theanalysis of literature to be
reviewed.
 Body well structured, with coherent
& logical development of ideas*.
 Conclusion identifies what has
been written on the topic and what
needs to be done.
 Sources are relevant and credible
to the topic**.
 Majority of sources within past 5-7
years.
 Demonstrated an excellent
understanding of links between the
necessary concepts.
 Demonstrated clear and consistent
evidence of critical appraisal of
reference material.
 Reflects focus of the topic-
appropriately weighted.
 Notes ambiguities in the literature;
synthesises and presents a new
perspective of the literature
28 – 31.5 marks
 Introduction identifies the
relevance, scope and focus of the
critical analysis of literature but
may not be succinct.
 Body well structured, with
predominantly coherent & logical
development of ideas*.
 Conclusion predominantly
identifies what has been written on
the topic and what needs to be
done.
 Sources are predominantly
relevant and credible to the topic**.
 Majority of sources within past 5-7
years.
 Demonstrated a very good
understanding of links between the
necessary concepts.
 Demonstrated some evidence of
critical appraisal of reference
material.
 Reflects focus of the topic- mostly
appropriately weighted.
 Notes ambiguities in the literature;
mostly synthesises and presents a
new perspective of the literature
24 – 27.5 marks
 Introduction largely appropriate to
the task but doesn’t clearly identify
the relevance, scope and focus of
the critical analysis of literature
 Body mostly well structured, with
predominantly coherent & logical
development of ideas*.
 Conclusion largely identifies what
has been written on the topic and
what needs to be done.
 Majority of sources are
predominantly relevant and
credible to the topic**.
 Majority of sources within past 5-7
years.
 Demonstrated a good
understanding of links between the
necessary concepts.
 Demonstrated inconsistent
evidence of critical appraisal of
reference material.
 Reflects focus of the topic- may be
inappropriately weighted.
 Some ambiguities in the literature
noted; limited synthesis of a new
perspective of the literature.
20 – 23.5 marks
 Introduction may not be
appropriate to the task and doesn’t
clearly identify the relevance,
scope and focus of the critical
analysis of literature.
 Body may not be well structured,
with limited coherent & logical
development of ideas*.
 Conclusion mostly identifies what
has been written on the topic and
what needs to be done.
 Few of the sources are relevant
and credible to the topic**.
 Many sources not within past 5-7
years.
 Demonstrated a limited
understanding of links between the
necessary concepts.
 Demonstrated limited evidence of
critical appraisal of reference
material.
 Limited focus on the topic- may be
inappropriately weighted.
 Few ambiguities in the literature
noted; poor synthesis of a new
perspective of the literature.
0 – 19.5 marks
 Introduction inappropriate to the
task and doesn’t clearly identify the
relevance, scope and focus of the
critical analysis of literature.
 Body poorly structured, with limited
coherent & logical development of
ideas*.
 Conclusion does not identify what
has been written on the topic and
what needs to be done.
 Few of the sources are relevant
and credible to the topic**.
 Majority of sources not within past
5-7 years.
 Demonstrated a lack of
understanding of links between the
necessary concepts.
 No evidence of critical appraisal of
reference material.
 Lack of focus on the topic -
inappropriately weighted.
 No ambiguities in the literature
noted; lacks synthesis of a new
perspective of the literature.
/40
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 7 of 7

Referencing/citations (up to 4 marks deducted)  APA 6 style not consistently used for citations (where required)
 APA 6 style not consistently used for reference list (where required) -
Presentation(up to 2 marks deducted)  Professional language not consistently used
 Spelling, typing and/ or grammatical errors -
Word limit (up to 2 marks deducted)  Word limit - (more than or less than 10% of the prescribed limit) -
EXAMINER: Additional comments:
TOTAL MARK FOR
PART B
= /100
NSG3NCR Project Part B Template July 2017 Page 8 of 7