Create A 35-Page Submission With A PICOT Question

Create A 3 5 Page Submission In Which You Develop A Picot Question F

Create a 3-5 page submission in which you develop a PICO(T) question for a specific care issue and evaluate the evidence you locate, which could help to answer the question. PICO(T) is an acronym that helps researchers and practitioners define aspects of a potential study or investigation. It stands for: P – Patient/population/problem. I – Intervention. C – Comparison (of potential interventions, typically). O - Outcome(s). T - Time frame (if time frame is relevant). The end goal of applying PICO(T) is to develop a question that can help guide the search for evidence (Boswell & Cannon, 2015). From this perspective, a PICO(T) question can be a valuable starting point for nurses who are starting to apply an evidence-based model or EBPs. By taking the time to precisely define the areas in which the nurse will be looking for evidence, searches become more efficient and effective.

Essentially, by precisely defining the types of evidence within specific areas, the nurse will be more likely to discover relevant and useful evidence during their search. You are encouraged to complete the Vila Health PCI(T) Process activity before you develop the plan proposal. This activity offers an opportunity to practice working through creating a PICO(T) question within the context of an issue at a Vila Health facility. These skills will be necessary to complete Assessment 3 successfully. This is for your own practice and self-assessment and demonstrates your engagement in the course.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Developing an effective PICO(T) question is fundamental for guiding evidence-based nursing practice and fostering improvements in patient care. The PICO(T) framework enables clinicians to formulate precise clinical questions that focus on specific patient populations, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and time frames, facilitating targeted research and informed decision-making (Boswell & Cannon, 2015). This paper explores a clinical issue related to fall prevention among elderly hospitalized patients, formulates a PICO(T) question addressing this concern, and evaluates relevant scholarly evidence to inform practice decisions.

Defining the Practice Issue

Falls among hospitalized older adults constitute a significant patient safety concern, often leading to injury, prolonged hospital stays, and increased healthcare costs (Oliver et al., 2010). Despite existing protocols, fall rates remain high, indicating a need for evidence-based strategies tailored to this population. Addressing this issue requires identifying effective interventions that reduce falls without compromising patient mobility or comfort.

Formulating the PICO(T) Question

Based on this issue, the PICO(T) question is formulated as follows:

• Population (P): Hospitalized elderly patients aged 65 and older
• Intervention (I): Implementation of hourly rounding protocols with specific fall prevention measures
• Comparison (C): Usual care without structured hourly rounding
• Outcome (O): Reduction in fall incidence during hospitalization
• Time frame (T): Over a 6-month period

Thus, the complete PICO(T) question reads: "In hospitalized elderly patients aged 65 and older, does implementing hourly rounding protocols compared to usual care reduce fall incidence over a 6-month period?"

Evaluation of Evidence

In exploring the literature, two scholarly sources were identified that provide relevant insights into fall prevention strategies in hospitalized older adults. The first article by Oliver et al. (2010) reviews multiple interventions, emphasizing the effectiveness of structured hourly rounding in reducing falls. The second study by Haines et al. (2011) examines multifactorial risk assessments and tailored interventions, highlighting their role in fall reduction.

Oliver et al. (2010) conducted a systematic review analyzing various fall prevention interventions, concluding that structured hourly rounding significantly decreases patient falls and injuries. They emphasized that consistent implementation of rounding protocols, involving assessment and assistance, fosters a safer environment. The study underlines that nurse-led interventions targeting patient-specific risks are crucial. Their findings support the intervention component of the PICO(T) question, suggesting that hourly rounding can be an effective measure to mitigate falls.

Haines et al. (2011) conducted a cluster randomized trial assessing the impact of multifactorial risk assessment and individualized intervention plans. Their results indicated a notable reduction in fall rates when tailored strategies, including environmental modifications and patient education, were employed. This evidence suggests that combining structured interventions like hourly rounding with personalized assessments enhances fall prevention outcomes.

Application of Evidence to Practice

The evidence from Oliver et al. (2010) supports the hypothesis that structured hourly rounding can be a key component of fall prevention programs in hospitals. Implementing such protocols requires staff training, consistent adherence, and ongoing evaluation to ensure effectiveness. The findings from Haines et al. (2011) reinforce the need for comprehensive approaches, combining routine interventions with individualized assessments tailored to each patient's risks.

By integrating these evidence-based strategies, nursing staff can develop a more proactive approach to fall prevention, ultimately reducing adverse events and improving patient safety. The studies also highlight the importance of continuous staff education and the use of multidisciplinary teams to sustain successful interventions.

Conclusion

Formulating a precise PICO(T) question facilitates targeted research and promotes the implementation of effective interventions. The evidence suggests that hourly rounding protocols, especially when combined with risk assessments, can significantly decrease fall incidents among hospitalized elderly patients. Future practice should focus on integrating these evidence-based strategies into standard care protocols, with ongoing evaluation to adapt interventions as needed. Ultimately, leveraging credible scholarly evidence supports the continual improvement of patient safety initiatives in clinical settings.

References

• Boswell, C., & Cannon, S. (2015). Introduction to nursing research. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Haines, T. P., Morris, R. L., & Donaldson, C. (2011). Prevention of falls in hospitals: A randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 342, d2854.
• Oliver, D., Healey, F., & Haines, T. P. (2010). Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals. Clinical Geriatrics, 18(4), 12-23.
• Sherrington, C., Tiedemann, A., Fairhall, N., et al. (2011). Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: An updated meta-analysis and implications for practice. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 45(15), 123-130.
• Depuy, J., & Smith, R. (2017). Effectiveness of hourly rounding protocols: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 32(2), 136-142.
• Haines, T. P., Morris, R. L., & Donaldson, C. (2011). Prevention of falls in hospitals: A randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 342, d2854.
• Malone, D. et al. (2018). Multifactorial risk assessments for fall prevention: A review. Geriatric Nursing, 39, 381-385.
• Chang, J., et al. (2016). Impact of a national fall prevention protocol: A population-based study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(2), 229-234.
• Smith, R., & Jones, L. (2019). Nursing interventions and fall reduction: Evidence from recent studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(5-6), 892-900.
• Lee, H., et al. (2020). Effectiveness of environmental modifications in fall prevention. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 107, 103555.