Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?
In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
- Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
- Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
- Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
- Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
- Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
- Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
- Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
- Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
I UPLOADED MY ASSIGNMENTS FROM MODULE 2 WITH THE RESOURCES USED AND CLINICAL ISSUE. LOOKS LIKE SOME TWEAKS NEED TO BE MADE THIS IS THE FEEDBACK I RECEIVED:
Qualitative studies are not the best to use in EBP. Qualitative study the specific group of people but cannot be used to generalize results. You need quantitative studies for that. Some of the strengths you have in the first article are actually weaknesses for generalizability. For instance, samples should be random and purposeful can be biased. If the sample is from one hospital in one unit, it is difficult to generalize the results to a larger population.
Please select quantitative studies, this will assist you in determining if your PICOT is acceptable.
Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
· Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
· Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
· Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
· Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.
· Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.—
Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.—
Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.—
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
As a medical professor, I specialize in creating assignments and evaluating the performance of medical college students. In this assignment, I will be delving deeper into clinical inquiry by examining the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.
Answer to the Content:
Factors important to consider in purchasing a car include cost, reliability, and mileage. Reports suggesting a certain make and model of automobile with high mileage can be encouraging, but determining the validity of the evidence is important. One clinical issue of interest for this assignment is the effectiveness of hand hygiene in reducing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in healthcare facilities.
The PICO(T) question developed to address this clinical issue is: In healthcare facilities, how effective is hand hygiene in reducing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections compared to not using hand hygiene?
To conduct the search for peer-reviewed articles related to this topic, four research databases were used: CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science. The four relevant peer-reviewed articles selected for this assignment are:
1. Gould, D. J., Moralejo, D., Drey, N., & Chudleigh, J. H. (2017). Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).
2. Manchanda, K., & Singh, S. (2019). Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection and antimicrobial resistance. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 12(2), 170-176.
3. Oh, H. S. (2015). Hand hygiene education for the control of nosocomial infections. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 27(2), 471-474.
4. World Health Organization. (2009). WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in healthcare. Geneva: World Health Organization.
The levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles selected are as follows:
1. Gould et al. (2017) is a systematic review and meta-analysis, which is considered level one evidence. The strength of using systematic reviews for clinical research is that they provide a comprehensive and unbiased summary of all available evidence on a specific topic.
2. Manchanda and Singh (2019) is a systematic review and narrative summary, which is also considered level one evidence. The strength of using systematic reviews for clinical research is that they provide a standardized method to evaluate and synthesize the results of multiple studies.
3. Oh (2015) is a randomized controlled trial, which is considered level two evidence. The strength of using randomized controlled trials for clinical research is that they provide a high level of control over potential confounding variables, which allows for greater confidence in the results.
4. The World Health Organization (2009) guideline is an authoritative source considered level five evidence. Guidelines serve as an important tool for implementing evidence-based practices in healthcare settings.
In conclusion, hand hygiene is a significant topic in reducing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections, and several peer-reviewed articles from various levels of evidence support the effectiveness of hand hygiene. Systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials provide the strongest evidence, while guidelines serve as an important tool for implementing evidence-based practices in healthcare settings.
