Discussion Searching Databases
When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.
The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.
In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.
To Prepare:
By Day 3 of Week 4
Post a brief description of your clinical issue of interest. This clinical issue will remain the same for the entire course and will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question. Describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW
RUBRIC
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
Searching Databases in Clinical Inquiry
The clinical issue of interest for this clinical inquiry is pressure ulcers in bed-bound patients. This is a significant problem that affects those patients who have been bed-ridden for long periods of time and who lack appropriate or timely nursing care. Pressure ulcers are therefore a quality improvement (QI) concern and are an indicator that the quality of care in the setting in which the patient is admitted is wanting.
Nurses can assess the risk of developing pressure ulcers in bed-ridden patients by using the Braden Scale. The other two scales or tools that can be used are the Norton Scale and the Waterflow Scale (Gaspar et al., 2019; Kottner et al., 2019). Some of the causes of pressure ulcers include neglect, being bed-ridden or immobile, poor nutritional status, and frailty. To discover the available evidence-based interventions to prevent pressure ulcers, a search of research databases is carried out using a PICOT statement that provides key words for the search (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019; Melnyk et al., 2009).
When carrying out the search for evidence for this topic in research databases, the original search yielded a total of 8,032 articles. On close scrutiny, it was clear that most of these were not quite specific to what the PICOT question is asking. What were therefore needed were filtering and the use of Boolean operators to narrow down the search.
When the search terms “pressure ulcers,” “prevention,” and “bed-ridden” were combined using the Boolean operator “AND”, the search now yielded more specific articles numbering 76. Out of this, the strategies that might be used to increase the rigor and effectiveness of the database search on the PICOT question include filtering using the dates of publication (for instance, within the last ten years or five years), and filtering using the type of study (e.g. randomized controlled trial or RCT, systematic review and meta-analysis, and so on).
References
Gaspar, S., Peralta, M., Marques, A., Budri, A., & Gaspar de Matos, M. (2019). Effectiveness on hospital-acquired pressure ulcers prevention: A systematic review. International Wound Journal, 16(5), 1087-1102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13147
Hekmatpou, D., Mehrabi, F., Rahzani, K., & Aminiyan, A. (2018). The effect of Aloe Vera gel on prevention of pressure ulcers in patients hospitalized in the orthopedic wards: A randomized triple-blind clinical trial. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 18(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2326-2
Kottner, J., Cuddigan, J., Carville, K., Balzer, K., Berlowitz, D., Law, S., … & Sigaudo-Roussel, D. (2019). Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019. Journal of Tissue Viability, 28(2), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2019.01.001
Melnyk, B.M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice, 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer.
Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S.B., & Williamson, K.M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58
Nixon, J., Smith, I. L., Brown, S., McGinnis, E., Vargas-Palacios, A., Nelson, E. A., … & Henderson, V. (2019). Pressure relieving support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and health economic results of a randomized controlled trial. EClinicalMedicine, 14, 42-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.07.018
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more