Part A
Details: You are required to write a Project Proposal outlining how you might address significant problem related to health-related policy, practice, education or leadership. This requires you to develop an initial plan as to how you might design and undertake the project successfully. In addition, are required to outline where this project fits within the existing literature and what might be expected value of the project is in terms of our current knowledge base. Your proposal (marked out of 100) will be assessed on:
• Problem statement 10% (How this problem is significant)
• Project Design and feasibility 40% (PICO format for research question)
• Knowledge of topic 20%
• Analysis and flow of ideas 10%
• Writing style 10%
• Referencing 10%
Your project proposal must include in order:
1- Title page
• Your full name and student number.
• Your project Title
2- Background/project context: (150 -200 words)
Overview of the project, what is it and what is the broad project plan? Why is the project needed?
_What will it add to our knowledge base?
_What examples (If any) are there in the literature of how similar questions have been addressed?
3- Project Design: (250- 300 words)
Rapid Review (summery evidences of systematic review)
Criteria for considering systematic review articles for this review based on
• Types of articles
• Types of participants
• Types of interventions/ phenomenon of interest
• Types of outcome measures
• Search Strategy
• Methods of Review
• Assessment of methodological quality
• Data extraction
• Data synthesis
4 Expected outcomes and feasibility: (50-100 words)
• In brief, what are the expected project outcomes based on the project plan? For example, influence of exercise as intervention on body mass index as outcome.
• Is there evidence of approval from Managers and capacity to successfully complete the project?
Strong recommendations for future research and health practice
4- Reference list: All reference must be at least 10 years old.
6- Appendices (not included in the word count)
All included Appendices MUST be referred to in the main text
The first Appendix (Appendix A): should be the Gantt chart/ Proposed Time Frame
The second Appendix (Appendix B): Search strategies (Minimum 2: Medline & Cambridge Core)
The third Appendix (Appendix C): Critical Appraisal Tool (CASP)
The fourth Appendix (Appendix D): Data extraction form
Style and format: Reference style/format as per Author – Date (APA7)
Marking Criteria:
Problem statement 10%
Presents a significant problem related to discipline of nursing or health that is original and creative.
Project Design and feasibility 40%
Provides clear and evaluative statements of the project design and associated methods. Insightful discussion of related methods
Knowledge of topic 20%
Demonstrates insight and awareness of the deeper, more subtle aspects of the topic
Analysis and flow of ideas 10%
An ability to present the topic within the broader context of the discipline nursing or a specialist area of healthcare policy, leadership, education and practice. Demonstrates imagination and independent thought. There is evidence of highly developed analytical and evaluative skills.
Writing style 10%
Consistently demonstrated a high level of academic writing with a clear & logical structure. Virtually free from spelling, grammatical and/or terminology error
Please Remember to write for future tense and avoid claim “this project is the first one discusses this issue”.
Part B
To gain early feedback for this assessment, the subject prof provided us some clarification points and example to make everything clear and easy (please note this example does not cover a whole assessment requirement above, it is just a draft for early feedback. so please make sure to cover all assessment requirements once get feedback and approve for this draft):
“Conducting a Rapid Review of Systematic Reviews or a Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews is a huge undertaking that requires a lot of time and effort. The purpose of this thread is to provide additional feedback about your project. Please post any questions related to Rapid Review of Systematic Reviews/ Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews based project as a reply to this post. To receive feedback your posting must be made by this week, so that there is sufficient time for me to provide feedback to everyone in time to make any suggested changes and submitting Assessment before the due date”.
The process to be followed is as follows:
• Select a relevant topic that aims to address a significant problem related to the discipline of nursing or a specialist area of healthcare policy, leadership, education and practice
• Do a search in Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports and Google Scholar to identify between 5-10 Systematic review or Meta-analysis published on your topic or a topic similar within the last 10 years
• Prepare you post and questions as per instruction below:
•Project Title
•Review Question
Background/project context:
• 3 or 4 bullet points that provide a strong rational for why you are undertaking your project with a recent reference as per APA style for each point. The references that you use must be recent within the last five years and must demonstrate your knowledge of the topic
•Specify the type of articles (that is existing systematic reviews) that you will be including in your Review
• You should include a list of at least 5 or so SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS that meet your PICO or inclusion criteria with your posting. This will demonstrate that you are able to do a review on your topic and that you will be able to identify sufficient number of articles to discuss in Assessment 2: “Elevator pitch” Presentation and for Assessment 3 Final Project Output Assignment. If you are not able to identify sufficient number of articles there is a big risk that you will not find enough systematic reviews to be able to undertake a rapid review/scoping review- so you need to do this before you proceed any further with this topic.
For example:
Rapid Review Title: Effectiveness of chlorhexidine impregnated central venous catheters in preventing complications: a rapid review of systematic reviews
Review Aim/Objective: The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of chlorhexidine impregnated central venous catheters in preventing catheter-related complications when used for total parenteral nutrition (TPN), compared with standard (unimpregnated) catheters.
Specifically the question for this review is: Does chlorhexidine impregnated central venous catheters or the comparator reduces central-venous-catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs)?
Background/ Literature Review
TPN imposes a chronic breech in the body's barrier system (Pang, Eintracht, Schwartz, Lobo & MacNamara, 2019)
Infection is one of the two most common problems that arise after central venous access is established after thrombosis (Martincich, Cini, Lapkin, Lord, & Fernandez, 2019).
Mortality rate from catheter sepsis may be as high as 15% (Santarpia, et al, 2016).
A literature scope conducted in preparation of this project identified a number of systematic reviews on this topic (Lai et al., 2016) references to 3 or 4 systematic reviews identified) therefore this review will summarise evidence from SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Inclusion criteria (PICO)
Types of articles
This review will consider only systematic reviews articles
Types of participants
The current review will consider articles that include all participants receiving TPN through any central venous access devices in the adult inpatient unit in a hospital setting (intensive care unit (ICU) and non- ICU) with a CVC in place.
Intervention(s)/phenomena of interest
The current review will consider articles that evaluate the use of chlorhexidine impregnated central venous catheters (of any strength 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5 %)
Comparator/Control: Standard catheters.
Outcomes: The current review will consider studies that include the following outcomes:
Primary outcome: central-venous-catheter-related bloodstream infections
Secondary outcomes: complications (major or minor), infectious complications, noninfectious complications catheter colonisation, entry- and exit-site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed catheter securement, time on TPN (days)and mortality)?
Search strategy
• Search will be conducted in MEDLINE and CINAHL
• A search of grey literature will also be conducted via Google Scholar
• Search period 2010-2020 (so as to identify and summarise the most recent evidence)
• Limited to articles published in English language
• Reference list of all the included studies will be searched for additional articles
References:
(You need to list reference that you have cited in your Background/ Literature Review above)
Martincich, I., Cini, K., Lapkin, S., Lord, H., & Fernandez, R. (2019). Central Venous Access Device Complications in Patients Receiving Parenteral Nutrition in General Ward Settings: A Retrospective Analysis. JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition.
Pang, S. A., Eintracht, S., Schwartz, J. M., Lobo, B., & MacNamara, E. (2019). Hypersensitivity reactions to high osmolality Total Parenteral Nutrition: a case report. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 15(1), 1-4.
Santarpia, L., Buonomo, A., Pagano, M. C., Alfonsi, L., Foggia, M., Mottola, M., … & Pasanisi, F. (2016). Central venous catheter related bloodstream infections in adult patients on home parenteral nutrition: prevalence, predictive factors, therapeutic outcome. Clinical Nutrition, 35(6), 1394-1398.
List of Potential Systematic Reviews
(you should list at least 5-10 relevant articles that meet your PICO or inclusion criteria)
Lai, N. M., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Lai, N. A., O'Riordan, E., Pau, W. S. C., & Saint, S. (2016). Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter‐related infections in adults. The Cochrane Library.
Sharp, G., Green, S., & Rose, M. (2016). Chlorhexidine‐induced anaphylaxis in surgical patients: a review of the literature. ANZ journal of surgery, 86(4), 237-243.
Puri, B. K., Derham, A., & Monro, J. A. (2019). Prevention of Infection in Adults Receiving Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment via Indwelling Central Venous Access Devices. Reviews on recent clinical trials, 14(1), 47-49.