You Are The Director Of Nursing In An Oncology Unit

You Are The Director Of Nursing In An Oncology Uni

Discussion Question: You are the Director of Nursing in an Oncology Unit in a large teaching medical center that is university-affiliated. You are concerned that the IV catheter insertion technique and orientation program currently being used with new registered nurses is not as effective as other methods. How would you perform a systematic review of the evidence on this subject? How would you design a new clinical practice guideline for the facility once the systematic review is complete?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The efficacy of intravenous (IV) catheter insertion techniques and the effectiveness of orientation programs for new registered nurses are critical components in ensuring patient safety and optimizing clinical outcomes in oncology units. As the Director of Nursing, undertaking a systematic review of existing evidence is essential to evaluate current practices and identify evidence-based improvements. This paper outlines a comprehensive approach to conducting such a systematic review and subsequently designing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) tailored to the facility's needs.

Performing a Systematic Review of Evidence

The first step involves defining a clear research question, guided by the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). In this context, the population includes newly registered nurses in oncology settings; the intervention comprises the IV catheter insertion techniques and orientation programs; the comparison could involve current practices versus alternative methods; and the outcomes focus on insertion success rates, patient safety, nurse confidence, and complication rates (Higgins et al., 2019).

Once the research question is formulated, a comprehensive literature search should be conducted across multiple electronic databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Search terms should include keywords like "IV catheter insertion," "nursing orientation," "clinical practice guidelines," "evidence-based practice," and "oncology nursing." Boolean operators and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms can enhance the search precision (Bettany-Saltikov & Whittle, 2014).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be established to filter relevant studies. For example, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and systematic reviews published within the last decade that focus on IV insertion techniques and nurse training in oncology units.

The next phase involves screening the identified literature through title and abstract review, followed by full-text evaluation. Critical appraisal tools, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool or the CASP checklists, should be used to assess the methodological quality of the studies (Shamseer et al., 2015).

Data extraction follows, capturing key variables such as study design, sample size, intervention details, outcomes measured, and results. The evidence is then synthesized qualitatively and, where appropriate, quantitatively through meta-analysis using statistical software like RevMan, to determine the pooled effects of various interventions (Higgins et al., 2019).

Finally, the findings are interpreted in the context of clinical relevance, quality of evidence (graded via GRADE approach), and applicability to the specific oncology unit setting. Documenting the entire process ensures transparency and reproducibility, aligning with PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).

Designing a New Clinical Practice Guideline

Following the systematic review, developing a clinical practice guideline involves translating evidence into actionable recommendations. A multidisciplinary team—including nursing educators, clinical experts, quality improvement specialists, and frontline nurses—should collaborate to ensure comprehensive input (Balshem et al., 2011).

The process begins with defining the scope and purpose of the guideline, explicitly stating objectives, target population, and clinical questions. Recommendations are formulated based on the strength of evidence, balancing benefits and risks. Utilizing a grading system such as GRADE ensures clarity regarding the confidence level in each recommendation (Guyatt et al., 2008).

The guideline must outline standardized procedures for IV insertion, including aseptic techniques, proper site selection, use of ultrasound or vein visualization tools if supported by evidence, and troubleshooting common complications. Additionally, the orientation program should be revised to incorporate simulation-based training, competency assessments, and ongoing education to reinforce best practices (Cant et al., 2019).

Implementation strategies should include staff workshops, competency checklists, and integration into electronic health records for documentation and audit purposes. It is essential to establish monitoring and evaluation metrics, such as infection rates, success rates on first attempt, and nurse confidence levels, to measure adherence and effectiveness (Furst et al., 2016).

Regular review and updating of the guideline are necessary to adapt to emerging evidence and technological advances. Education and leadership support are vital for successful implementation, fostering a culture of safety and continuous improvement (Graham et al., 2016).

Conclusion

A systematic review provides a rigorous foundation for evaluating and selecting evidence-based practices related to IV catheter insertion and nurse orientation. Developing a clinical practice guideline based on this evidence ensures standardized, safe, and effective procedures tailored to the oncology setting. This process ultimately enhances patient outcomes, nurse competency, and institutional quality standards.

References

  • Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., et al. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 401-406.
  • Bettany-Saltikov, J., & Whittle, R. (2014). How to do a systematic review. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Cant, R., McKenna, L., & Hoth, S. (2019). Simulation-Based Training in Nursing Education: Impact on Competency Development. Nurse Education Today, 83, 104214.
  • Furst, J. A., Rask, K. J., & Qin, X. (2016). Improving Clinical Practice with Evidence-Based Protocols and Guidelines. Journal of Nursing Administration, 46(4), 224-231.
  • Graham, I. D., Tetroe, J., & Caswell, W. (2016). Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Wiley Blackwell.
  • Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., et al. (2008). GRADE: An Emerging Consensus on Rating Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. BMJ, 336(7650), 924-926.
  • Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., et al. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
  • Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., et al. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and Explanation. BMJ, 350, g7647.

Related Assignments