PICOT STATEMENT WITH RESEARCH CRITIQUES 5 chlorhexidine bathing is not

Picot statement with research critiques 5

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 14 pages.

PICOT STATEMENT WITH RESEARCH CRITIQUES5chlorhexidine bathing is not implemented. One study showed that when CHG bathing was not implemented on a hematology-oncology unit 3 HAIs occurred and after implementation no HAIsoccurred. The other study on an ICU unit showed that barriers led to noncompliance of CHG bathing and that interventions can lead to adherence which in turn leads to reduction or elimination of HAIs. The two studies have a direct relation to my PICOT question. Method of study. The two qualitative articles used different methods of study. In the firststudy, qualitative content analysis was used to code and analyze the data from 26 semi-structed interviews with a convenience sampling of four nurse managers, 13 registered nurses, and nine health care technicians working in the VA ICU unit (Musuuza et al., 2017). One benefit is that the study allows for the participants to talk openly which makes easier to respond and builds trust. One limitation to this method is that it is time- consuming when transcribing, analyzing, and coding data.In the second study, direct observations of the bathing process and chart audits of EHR ofCHG documentation was conducted on a 24-bed unit at Emory University. One benefit to this study is that researcher is not a participant in study and is not as demanding and data is more accurate compared to direct questioning interview. One limitation to method is it time-consuming especially with many things to observe and chart audits. Results of study. The first study at the Veteran’s hospital the researchers were able to analyze five steps to the bathing process as follows: decision to give a bath influenced by the purpose and priority for giving a bath , bath ability influenced by workload and staffing, bath assistance was influenced by timing and staff availability, bath delegation for clinically stable patients, and bath soap type decision (no distinction between CHG bath vs. soap/water bath as infection control measure) (Musuuza et al., 2017). Interrupted bath, no bath, or completed bath
PICOT STATEMENT WITH RESEARCH CRITIQUES6were possible outcomes related to the bathing process (Musuuza et al., 2017). Education, approach, beliefs and perceptions from nurses about the CHG baths guided whether soap and water vs. CHG soap was utilized. Nursing staff had mixed reviews about adding CHG bathing to order set. The results proved that CHG bathing is affected by many factors.The second study conducted over a three-month period at Emory University Hospital yielded the following results: the hematology-oncology 24 bed unit produced three nonpreventable bloodstream infections and zero preventable bloodstream infections (Jusin-Leon,Matheson, & Forsythe, 2019). The study chose two days out of every week to review offered CHG baths and documentation. The first month showed two preventable CLASBIs which was directly related to CHG patient refusal during hospital stay. After implementation engage, educate, execute, and evaluate project the unit had zero reportable CLASBIS. The qualitative

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture