NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review – Step-by-Step Guide

The first step before starting to write the NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review, it is essential to understand the requirements of the assignment. The first step is to read the assignment prompt carefully to identify the topic, the length and format requirements. You should go through the rubric provided so that you can understand what is needed to score the maximum points for each part of the assignment.

It is also important to identify the audience of the paper and its purpose so that it can help you determine the tone and style to use throughout. You can then create a timeline to help you complete each stage of the paper, such as conducting research, writing the paper, and revising it to avoid last-minute stress before the deadline. After identifying the formatting style to be applied to the paper, such as APA, you should review its use, such as writing citations and referencing the resources used. You should also review how to format the title page and the headings in the paper.

How to Research and Prepare for NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

The next step in preparing for your paper is to conduct research and identify the best sources to use to support your arguments. Identify the list of keywords from your topic using different combinations. The first step is to visit the university library and search through its database using the important keywords related to your topic. You can also find books, peer-reviewed articles, and credible sources for your topic from PubMed, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar. Ensure that you select the references that have been published in the last words and go through each to check for credibility.

Ensure that you obtain the references in the required format, for example, in APA, so that you can save time when creating the final reference list. You can also group the references according to their themes that align with the outline of the paper. Go through each reference for its content and summarize the key concepts, arguments and findings for each source. You can write down your reflections on how each reference connects to the topic you are researching about. After the above steps, you can develop a strong thesis that is clear, concise and arguable. Next you should create a detailed outline of the paper so that it can help you to create headings and subheadings to be used in the paper. Ensure that you plan what point will go into each paragraph.

How to Write the Introduction for NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

The introduction of the paper is the most crucial part as it helps to provide the context of your work, and will determine if the reader will be interested to read through to the end. You should start with a hook, which will help capture the reader’s attention. You should contextualize the topic by offering the reader a concise overview of the topic you are writing about so that they may understand its importance. You should state what you aim to achieve with the paper. The last part of the introduction should be your thesis statement, which provides the main argument of the paper.

How to Write the Body for NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

The body of the paper helps you to present your arguments and evidence to support your claims. You can use headings and subheadings developed in the paper’s outline to guide you on how to organize the body. Start each paragraph with a topic sentence to help the reader know what point you will be discussing in that paragraph. Support your claims using the evidence conducted from the research, ensure that you cite each source properly using in-text citations. You should analyze the evidence presented and explain its significance and how it connects to the thesis statement. You should maintain a logical flow between each paragraph by using transition words and a flow of ideas.

How to Write the In-text Citations for NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

In-text citations help the reader to give credit to the authors of the references they have used in their works. All ideas that have been borrowed from references, any statistics and direct quotes must be referenced properly. The name and date of publication of the paper should be included when writing an in-text citation. For example, in APA, after stating the information, you can put an in-text citation after the end of the sentence, such as (Smith, 2021). If you are quoting directly from a source, include the page number in the citation, for example (Smith, 2021, p. 15). Remember to also include a corresponding reference list at the end of your paper that provides full details of each source cited in your text. An example paragraph highlighting the use of in-text citations is as below:

The integration of technology in nursing practice has significantly transformed patient care and improved health outcomes. According to Smith (2021), the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has streamlined communication among healthcare providers, allowing for more coordinated and efficient care delivery. Furthermore, Johnson and Brown (2020) highlight that telehealth services have expanded access to care, particularly for patients in rural areas, thereby reducing barriers to treatment.

How to Write the Conclusion for NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

When writing the conclusion of the paper, start by restarting your thesis, which helps remind the reader what your paper is about. Summarize the key points of the paper, by restating them. Discuss the implications of your findings and your arguments. End with a call to action that leaves a lasting impact on the reader or recommendations.

How to Format the Reference List for NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review

The reference helps provide the reader with the complete details of the sources you cited in the paper. The reference list should start with the title “References” on a new page. It should be aligned center and bolded, in sentence sentence care. The references should be organized in an ascending order alphabetically and each should have a hanging indent. If a source has no author, it should be alphabetized by the title of the work, ignoring any initial articles such as “A,” “An,” or “The.” If you have multiple works by the same author, list them in chronological order, starting with the earliest publication.

Each reference entry should include specific elements depending on the type of source. For books, include the author’s last name, first initial, publication year in parentheses, the title of the book in italics, the edition (if applicable), and the publisher’s name. For journal articles, include the author’s last name, first initial, publication year in parentheses, the title of the article (not italicized), the title of the journal in italics, the volume number in italics, the issue number in parentheses (if applicable), and the page range of the article. For online sources, include the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) or the URL at the end of the reference. An example reference list is as follows:

References

Johnson, L. M., & Brown, R. T. (2020). The role of telehealth in improving patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 35(2), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000456

Smith, J. A. (2021). The impact of technology on nursing practice. Health Press.

NRS 465 Benchmark – Literature Review Instructions

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.

A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the PICOT question from the earlier “PICOT Question” template and information from the “Literature Evaluation Table” assignment to develop a review.

Using eight peer-reviewed articles, write 750-1,000-word review that includes the following sections:

Introduction section (including PICOT Question)

A summary of the purpose of the studies

A comparison of sample populations

A synthesis of the studies’ conclusions (when looking at all of the studies together, group the conclusions by themes )

A summary of the limitations of the studies

A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research

You are required to cite a minimum of eight peer-reviewed articles to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the past 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance. Check the next task here NRS 465 Topic 7 dq 1.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

RN-BSN

4.1: Advance the scholarship of nursing.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education This assignment aligns to AACN Core Competencies 4.1

Literature Review Example

Patient falls are among the leading causes of preventable injuries and death. A patient fall is a sudden descent to the floor that can or may not cause injury. Patient fall risks include health status, age, and environmental conditions. Fall prevention strategies include bed/chair alarms, fall mats, wearable sensors, hourly rounding, and assistive devices such as walkers and sticks. These measures prevent falls to a significant degree when used diligently, but the burden of falls is still high, necessitating the implementation of more effective interventions in fall prevention.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (n.d.), falls are the most common cause of traumatic brain injuries, lead to about 1 million fall-related hospitalizations annually, contribute to about 3 million emergency department visits each year, and one in ten falls among older adults lead to severe injury.  Remote video monitoring is a technology-mediated intervention that aims to monitor multiple patients to catch and prevent falls actively.  This paper reviews studies supporting the PICOT, discusses their purposes and sample populations, synthesizes study conclusions, and summarizes study limitations, conclusions, and recommendations from the studies. The guiding PICOT is “In hospitalized adult patients at high risk for falls (John Hopkins Hospital Fall Assessment Tool >14), how does remote video monitoring (RVM), compared to standard fall prevention strategies (bed/chair alarms, fall mat, hourly rounding), affect a decrease in patients’ falls and fall-related injuries by 50%, within 6 months.”

Purpose of Study

The review aimed to assess studies and determine their support for the PIOCT and implementation of a remote video monitoring technology to reduce the burden of falls. The studies reviewed had a shared goal of evaluating the effectiveness of remote video monitoring (RVM) and related technologies in reducing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitalized patients. Baez and Karl (2022) aimed to identify nursing staff perceptions of RVM and its benefits for fall prevention. Woltsche et al. (2022) sought to assess overnight portable video monitoring as an adjunct strategy for reducing falls in high-risk inpatient wards.

Hogan et al. (2021) conducted a literature review to examine the evidence on hospital-associated fall reduction using virtual sitters and video monitoring, while Hogan et al. (2022) conducted a quality improvement (QI) initiative to evaluate CVM’s impact on fall rates and injuries. Abbe and O’Keeffe (2021) explored best practices and systemwide results from CVM implementation in a large medical center. Davis and Carter-Templeton (2021) examined the impact of video observation in augmenting fall prevention for orthopedic patients. Obisesan et al. (2024) focused on understanding patient profiles that benefit most from virtual patient observation (VPO) technologies. Ergai et al. (2024) analyzed the effectiveness of RVM on fall prevention and nurses’ acceptance in various inpatient units. These studies explored RVM’s clinical and operational value in improving patient safety and reducing healthcare costs.

Comparison of Sample Populations

The sample populations varied across the studies, reflecting diverse patient demographics and healthcare settings. The sample populations entailed inpatients in various wards, and staff monitored these patients. The patient demographics were varied, including patients from different wards (geriatric, orthopedic, and critical care units), ages, and healthcare conditions. Baez and Karl (2022) surveyed 50 staff members monitoring patients in COVID-19-affected inpatient units, though patient numbers were undisclosed. Woltsche et al. (2022) focused on three inpatient wards in Melbourne hospitals, including 24-, 23-, and 30-bed units for geriatric, acute care, and aged care patients. Hogan et al. (2021) synthesized data from 12 articles covering various inpatient populations, while Hogan et al. (2022) studied patients older than 18 years at high fall risk in a 244-bed hospital. Abbe and O’Keeffe (2021) analyzed CVM use in inpatients with cognitive or behavioral concerns at a large medical center.

Davis and Carter-Templeton (2021) studied patients with fall risk scores above 13 in a 30-bed orthopedic unit. Obisesan et al. (2024) examined 289 VPO patients, analyzing their demographics and clinical profiles. Ergai et al. (2024) included 41 units across four hospitals, focusing on high-fall-risk patients with conditions like dementia, delirium, and brain injuries. Across these studies, patient inclusion criteria emphasized those at high risk of falls due to age, cognitive impairment, or physical conditions, showcasing RVM’s broad applicability. The varied population demographics and characteristics are crucial to analyzing RVM’s applicability to various situations, populations, and settings and the generalizability of the practice.

Synthesis of Studies’ Conclusions

The conclusions of all eight studies consistently demonstrated the benefits of RVM and related technologies in preventing falls and reducing injuries. The major themes discussed in the studies include reduced injuries, staff and patient satisfaction, cost savings, and reduced patient falls. Baez and Karl (2022) observed a 45.5% fall reduction and high staff satisfaction, with 85% of surveyed staff endorsing RVM as valuable. The researchers concluded that RVM is integral to fall reduction and is compatible with most staff. Woltsche et al. (2022) reported fall reductions of 72%, 50%, and 33% in different wards (Geriatric, acute care, and acute aged care units, respectively), highlighting its effectiveness in patient fall reduction. The study concluded that RVM is applicable in various clinical settings and effectively reduces falls in various areas. The technology is inexpensive, available, and cost-effective to use and implement without additional technologies. However, RVM should be adapted to meet the needs of patients in the various units for optimal outcomes.

Hogan et al. (2021) synthesized findings from 12 articles, noting that eight studies showed significant fall reductions, with reported cost savings. The study’s quantitative analysis demonstrated a 14% decrease in median fall rates, a 6% reduction in injuries, and a $97,000 cost saving. The researchers concluded that there is enough statistical evidence to show that RVM effectively reduces patient fall rates, injuries, and care costs. Abbe and O’Keeffe (2021) noted an average monthly prevention of 2,768 potential fall events and $109,511 in savings within three quarters. The study concluded that RVM is effective in fall prevention and cost savings, and the intervention’s costs should be considered in future studies to determine their viability as a cost-effective fall prevention measure.

Davis and Carter-Templeton (2021) observed zero falls per 1000 patient days during a six-week intervention, concluding that RVM is an effective intervention for fall prevention through vigilant observation. Obisesan et al. (2024) found that patients with intensive care unit histories benefited most from VPO technologies. The researchers concluded that patients in intensive care units had the highest mean VPO time. In addition, institutions should examine the prevalence and variability in VPO utilization by specific patient demographics to identify which patients could benefit best from the technology. Ergai et al. (2024) reported a 39.15% reduction in falls with injury, a 70.6% success rate in RVM redirections, and moderate nurse satisfaction. The study concluded that implementing RVM can potentially enhance patient safety by reducing patient falls with injuries, and nurses consider the intervention as acceptable and useful. These studies concluded that RVM is an effective intervention that can reduce patient fall rates, injuries, and care costs. These studies’ conclusions support the PICOT and will influence the proposal’s implementation.

Study Limitations

The eight studies reviewed collectively revealed several limitations that may affect the generalizability and application of their findings. Many studies, such as those by Baez and Karl (2022), Woltsche et al. (2022), and Davis and Carter-Templeton (2021), had small sample sizes or undisclosed participant numbers, limiting their ability to represent broader populations. Small sample sizes limit the generalizability of studies. Additionally, the studies were often conducted over short periods, as exemplified by Davis and Carter-Templeton’s (2021) six-week evaluation, which may not capture the long-term effects of remote video monitoring (RVM). Variability in technology implementation was another common issue. Studies like Abbe and O’Keeffe (2021) and Hogan et al. (2022) highlighted differences in training, equipment setup, and monitoring protocols, which could influence outcomes and hinder comparability. Hogan et al. (2021) study limitations included limited studies and a small sample size (n=12), affecting the generalizability of the systematic review results.

Some studies lacked control groups, making it challenging to isolate the effects of RVM from other interventions. For instance, Woltsche et al. (2022) and Ergai et al. (2024) relied on observational and cohort designs, introducing potential bias. Woltsche et al. (2022) utilized ‘off the shelf’ commercial baby monitors, not designs for hospital use, limiting the study’s efficacy. Resistance to technology and moderate acceptance levels, as reported by Ergai et al. (2024), further underscored challenges in integrating RVM into routine clinical workflows.

Data collection methods, such as retrospective analysis or self-reported surveys in Baez and Karl (2022) and Hogan et al. (2021), were susceptible to bias and might not fully capture the impact of interventions. Most studies focused exclusively on high-risk patients, such as those with cognitive impairments or mobility issues, which limits the exploration of RVM’s potential benefits for lower-risk populations. Finally, while several studies, including Abbe and O’Keeffe (2021), reported initial cost savings, they did not examine long-term financial impacts or resource allocation, leaving questions about sustainability unanswered. However, the exclusion provides a vital basis for future research and quality improvement initiatives.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings across the eight studies consistently demonstrated that RVM is an effective fall prevention method, significantly reducing fall rates, improving patient safety, and yielding cost savings. For example, Baez and Karl (2022) reported a 45.5% reduction in falls, while Woltsche et al. (2022) observed up to 72% reductions across different inpatient units. Cost-effectiveness was also evident, with Hogan et al. (2022) highlighting a $97,000 savings within six months and Abbe and O’Keeffe (2021) noting $109,511 savings over three quarters. Additionally, several studies, including Ergai et al. (2024), emphasized RVM’s potential for successfully redirecting at-risk patients and moderate nurse satisfaction.

However, limitations in study design, duration, and population scope underline the need for further research to validate and expand upon these promising findings. Future research should focus on larger, more diverse patient populations across multiple healthcare settings to enhance the generalizability of findings. Longitudinal studies are essential to evaluate the sustained impact of RVM on fall rates, fall-related injuries, and cost-effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will provide stronger evidence by directly comparing RVM interventions to standard fall prevention strategies. Research should also explore optimization strategies for RVM technology, including best practices for implementation and the potential role of artificial intelligence in enhancing efficiency.

For future studies, detailed cost-benefit analyses are necessary to assess RVM’s financial sustainability, particularly its long-term return on investment. Furthermore, understanding nurse and patient perspectives on RVM, including barriers to acceptance, will support smoother integration into clinical workflows. Finally, utilizing standard and quality data collection and reporting metrics across studies will improve comparability and allow for more robust meta-analyses. By addressing these gaps, future research can solidify RVM’s role as a standard of care in diverse healthcare environments, ensuring equitable access and optimal outcomes.

References

Abbe, J. R., & O’Keeffe, C. (2021). Continuous video monitoring: Implementation strategies for safe patient care and identified best practices. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36(2), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000502

Baez, M., & Karl, C. (2022). Preventing falls with remote video monitoring. Nursing, 52(7), 47-49. http://doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000832384.85335.43

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d.). Facts about falls: Older adults fall prevention. Accessed December 20, 2024, from https://www.cdc.gov/falls/data-research/facts-stats/index.html

Davis, J. E., & Carter-Templeton, H. (2021). Augmenting an inpatient fall program with video observation. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36(1), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000486

Ergai, A., Spiva, L., Thurman, S., Hatfield, M., McCollum, M., & Holmes, M. (2024). The effectiveness of remote video monitoring on fall prevention and nurses’ acceptance. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 39(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000716

Hogan, B. Q., Renz, S. M., & Bradway, C. (2021). Fall prevention and injury reduction utilizing virtual sitters in hospitalized patients: A literature review. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 39(12), 929–934. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000773

Hogan, B. Q., Renz, S. M., & Bradway, C. (2022). Fall prevention and injury reduction utilizing continuous video monitoring: A quality improvement initiative. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 37(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000582

Obisesan, O., Tymkew, H., Gilmore, R., Brougham, N., & Dodd, E. (2024). Beyond the bedside: Decoding patient profiles for smarter virtual patient observation. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000807

Woltsche, R., Mullan, L., Wynter, K., & Rasmussen, B. (2022). Preventing patient falls overnight using video monitoring: A clinical evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 13735. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113735