Assignment: Review for Nursing Capstone
Literature Review for Nursing CapstoneOK. You’ve got to write a literature review. You dust off a novel and a book of poetry, settle down in your chair, and get ready to issue a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” as you leaf through the pages. “Literature review” done. Right?Wrong! The “literature” of a literature review refers to any collection of materials on a topic, not necessarily the great literary texts of the world. “Literature” could be anything from a set of government pamphlets on British colonial methods in Africa to scholarly articles on the treatment of a torn ACL. And a review does not necessarily mean that your reader wants you to give your personal opinion on whether or not you liked these sources.What is a literature review, then?A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period.A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis. A summary is a recap of the important information of the source, but a synthesis is a re-organization, or a reshuffling, of that information. It might give a new interpretation of old material or combine new with old interpretations. Or it might trace the intellectual progression of the field, including major debates. And depending on the situation, the literature review may evaluate the sources and advise the reader on the most pertinent or relevant.But how is a literature review different from an academic research paper?The main focus of an academic research paper is to develop a new argument, and a research paper is likely to contain a literature review as one of its parts. In a research paper, you use the literature as a foundation and as support for a new insight that you contribute. The focus of a literature review, however, is to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas of others without adding new contributions.Why do we write literature reviews?Literature reviews provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone. For professionals, they are useful reports that keep them up to date with what is current in the field. For scholars, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the writer in his or her field. Literature reviews also provide a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. Comprehensive knowledge of the literature of the field is essential to most research papers.Who writes these things, anyway?Literature reviews are written occasionally in the humanities, but mostly in the sciences and social sciences; in experiment and lab reports, they constitute a section of the paper. Sometimes a literature review is written as a paper in itself.Let’s get to it! What should I do before writing the literature review?ClarifyIf your assignment is not very specific, seek clarification from your instructor:· Roughly how many sources should you include?· What types of sources (books, journal articles, websites)?· Should you summarize, synthesize, or critique your sources by discussing a common theme or issue?· Should you evaluate your sources?· Should you provide subheadings and other background information, such as definitions and/or a history?Find modelsLook for other literature reviews in your area of interest or in the discipline and read them to get a sense of the types of themes you might want to look for in your own research or ways to organize your final review. You can simply put the word “review” in your search engine along with your other topic terms to find articles of this type on the Internet or in an electronic database. The bibliography or reference section of sources you’ve already read are also excellent entry points into your own research.Narrow your topicThere are hundreds or even thousands of articles and books on most areas of study. The narrower your topic, the easier it will be to limit the number of sources you need to read in order to get a good survey of the material. Your instructor will probably not expect you to read everything that’s out there on the topic, but you’ll make your job easier if you first limit your scope.And don’t forget to tap into your professor’s (or other professors’) knowledge in the field. Ask your professor questions such as: “If you had to read only one book from the 90’s on topic X, what would it be?” Questions such as this help you to find and determine quickly the most seminal pieces in the field.Consider whether your sources are currentSome disciplines require that you use information that is as current as possible. In the sciences, for instance, treatments for medical problems are constantly changing according to the latest studies. Information even two years old could be obsolete. However, if you are writing a review in the humanities, history, or social sciences, a survey of the history of the literature may be what is needed, because what is important is how perspectives have changed through the years or within a certain time period. Try sorting through some other current bibliographies or literature reviews in the field to get a sense of what your discipline expects. You can also use this method to consider what is currently of interest to scholars in this field and what is not.Strategies for writing the literature reviewFind a focusA literature review, like a term paper, is usually organized around ideas, not the sources themselves as an annotated bibliography would be organized. This means that you will not just simply list your sources and go into detail about each one of them, one at a time. No. As you read widely but selectively in your topic area, consider instead what themes or issues connect your sources together. Do they present one or different solutions? Is there an aspect of the field that is missing? How well do they present the material and do they portray it according to an appropriate theory? Do they reveal a trend in the field? A raging debate? Pick one of these themes to focus the organization of your review.Convey it to your readerA literature review may not have a traditional thesis statement (one that makes an argument), but you do need to tell readers what to expect. Try writing a simple statement that lets the reader know what is your main organizing principle. Here are a couple of examples:The current trend in treatment for congestive heart failure combines surgery and medicine.More and more cultural studies scholars are accepting popular media as a subject worthy of academic consideration.Consider organizationYou’ve got a focus, and you’ve stated it clearly and directly. Now what is the most effective way of presenting the information? What are the most important topics, subtopics, etc., that your review needs to include? And in what order should you present them? Develop an organization for your review at both a global and local level:First, cover the basic categoriesJust like most academic papers, literature reviews also must contain at least three basic elements: an introduction or background information section; the body of the review containing the discussion of sources; and, finally, a conclusion and/or recommendations section to end the paper.Introduction: Gives a quick idea of the topic of the literature review, such as the central theme or organizational pattern.Body: Contains your discussion of sources and is organized either chronologically, thematically, or methodologically (see below for more information on each).Conclusions/Recommendations: Discuss what you have drawn from reviewing literature so far. Where might the discussion proceed?Organizing the bodyOnce you have the basic categories in place, then you must consider how you will present the sources themselves within the body of your paper. Create an organizational method to focus this section even further.Remember to use the assignment rubric to organize your paper. Sometimes, though, you might need to add additional sections that are necessary for your study, but do not fit in the organizational strategy of the body. What other sections you include in the body is up to you. Put in only what is necessary. Here are a few other sections you might want to consider:Current Situation: Information necessary to understand the topic or focus of the literature review.History: The chronological progression of the field, the literature, or an idea that is necessary to understand the literature review, if the body of the literature review is not already a chronology.Methods and/or Standards: The criteria you used to select the sources in your literature review or the way in which you present your information. For instance, you might explain that your review includes only peer-reviewed articles and journals.Questions for Further Research: What questions about the field has the review sparked? How will you further your research as a result of the review?Begin composingOnce you’ve settled on a general pattern of organization, you’re ready to write each section. There are a few guidelines you should follow during the writing stage as well. Here is a sample paragraph from a literature reviewLimitations of the studies were not addressed in all articles and when they did not appear to follow a structured format. Leard Dissertation (2016), recommends the “announcement, reflection and forward looking” structure (paragraph, 1). Even though these articles did not follow a particular structure they did describe the limitation in easy to use terms and the importance of the limitation to the articles objective. The study limitations were located either within the discussion sections or separated.In one study the limitations were noted to be due to studies of the subject that were only within the English literature. The author felt that data was lost due to this limitation (Zhu & Zhang, 2016). Hui, Low & Lee (2011), acknowledge that the selection of their site (ICU) should have not been specific to a particular population of patients and that the use of the ICU might have influenced a different outcome of the results. Utilizing qualitative research to develop an intervention to equip nurses for acute life threatening events in a hospital lead to questions on whether the study could be replicated in similar pediatric settings (Hudson, Duncan, Pattison & Shaw, 2015).Use evidenceIn the example above, the writers refer to several other sources when making their point. A literature review in this sense is just like any other academic research paper. Your interpretation of the available sources must be backed up with evidence to show that what you are saying is valid.Be selectiveSelect only the most important points in each source to highlight in the review. The type of information you choose to mention should relate directly to the review’s focus, whether it is thematic, methodological, or chronological.Use quotes sparinglyFalk and Mills do not use any direct quotes. That is because the survey nature of the literature review does not allow for in-depth discussion or detailed quotes from the text. Some short quotes here and there are okay, though, if you want to emphasize a point, or if what the author said just cannot be rewritten in your own words. Notice that Falk and Mills do quote certain terms that were coined by the author, not common knowledge, or taken directly from the study. But if you find yourself wanting to put in more quotes, check with your instructor.Summarize and synthesizeRemember to summarize and synthesize your sources within each paragraph as well as throughout the review. The authors here recapitulate important features of Hamilton’s study, but then synthesize it by rephrasing the study’s significance and relating it to their own work.Keep your own voiceWhile the literature review presents others’ ideas, your voice (the writer’s) should remain front and center. Notice that Falk and Mills weave references to other sources into their own text, but they still maintain their own voice by starting and ending the paragraph with their own ideas and their own words. The sources support what Falk and Mills are saying.Use caution when paraphrasingWhen paraphrasing a source that is not your own, be sure to represent the author’s information or opinions accurately and in your own words. In the preceding example, Falk and Mills either directly refer in the text to the author of their source, such as Hamilton, or they provide ample notation in the text when the ideas they are mentioning are not their own, for example, Gastil’s.Revise, revise, reviseDraft in hand? Now you’re ready to revise. Spending a lot of time revising is a wise idea, because your main objective is to present the material, not the argument. So check over your review again to make sure it follows the assignment and/or your outline. Then, just as you would for most other academic forms of writing, rewrite or rework the language of your review so that you’ve presented your information in the most concise manner possible. Be sure to use terminology familiar to your audience; get rid of unnecessary jargon or slang. Finally, double check that you’ve documented your sources and formatted the review appropriately for your discipline.http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/
Literature Review for Nursing Capstone SAMPLE
Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW 1EMERGENCY RESUSCITATION EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES 7Title PageLiterature ReviewTo help define and implement the optimal solution to any improvement project, it is essential to go beyond local findings or local team assumptions and consider evidence-based data that has been gathered by industry experts. In this paper we will review literature germane to the selected capstone project Population/Patient Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Time (PICOT). The issue identified involves availability and appropriateness of the emergency resuscitation equipment, medical supplies and medications (crash carts) used for emergency resuscitation through the organization. The problem was noted during rounds in a full service hospital serving adults, pediatrics and neonatal patients (Vasko, 2016). The literature review shall compare findings from fifteen articles to see how evidence supports or directs the PICOT or if further research is required to fill the gaps.A Comparison of Research QuestionsMany of the articles chosen for the literature review were deemed appropriate because their research questions and/or hypotheses were focused on the PICOT. For example, of the fifteen articles chosen, eight of the articles were case studies about the impact of standardized equipment or standard procedures on the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The remaining seven articles could be grouped as root-cause analyses of poor patient ROSC outcomes with findings that relate to the importance of standardized equipment and procedures. In one of the articles entitled appropriately “Resuscitation Errors: A Shocking Problem,” the case study describes a situation where resuscitation was prevented when the defibrillation units was not compatible with pads that had been put on the patient (Association of Operating Room Nurses, 2013). Such a simple but powerful example of the direct impact of non-standard equipment not only on patient outcomes but one can only image the helpless feeling the RN must have had during the code.Seven of the articles were broader in scope looking at such things as the value of post-code education debriefs as a standard practice. In one such article three different post-code educational debriefing approaches were studied. One key finding was that, while feasible to do, debriefs “were not associated with large improvements in CPR quality or patient outcomes” (Couper, Kimani, Davies, Baker, Davies, Husselbee & Perkins, 2016. Pg. 136). Such findings with their methodical approach to data can offer powerful evidence for or against the PICOT. In this example, evidence that shows that standard debriefs do not have a strong positive correlation with outcomes is counterintuitive.A Comparison of Sample PopulationSince this author’s capstone project and PICOT relate to acute care and outpatient emergency room settings, it was critical that sample populations in the articles reviewed be germane. Of the fifteen articles reviewed, twelve had sample populations that were specific to acute care hospitals and/or their associated emergency departments. These settings included either stand-alone hospitals and/or small local systems of up to three hospitals, which is a direct correlation to the PICOT. One of the articles had as its focus acute care hospitals but was conducted via a database review of information and statistics from 172 hospitals. Finally, only two of the articles fell outside this acute care setting with one describing cases and data from a free standing medical clinic and the second from a simulated laboratory. Generally, the positive correlation between this author’s PICOT and the articles review was very strong.A Comparison of the Limitations of the StudyLimitations of the studies were not addressed in all articles and when they were they did not appear to follow a structured format. Leard Dissertation (2016), recommends the “announcement, reflection and forward looking” structure (paragraph, 1). Even though these articles did not follow a particular structure they did describe the limitation in easy to use terms and the importance of the limitation to the articles objective. The study limitations were located either within the discussion sections or separated.In one study the limitations were noted to be due to studies of the subject that were only within the English literature. The author felt that data was lost due to this limitation (Zhu & Zhang, 2016). Hui, Low & Lee (2011), acknowledge that the selection of their site (ICU) should have not been specific to a particular population of patients and that the use of the ICU might have influenced a different outcome of the results. Utilizing qualitative research to develop an intervention to equip nurses for acute life threatening events in a hospital lead to questions on whether the study could be replicated in similar pediatric settings (Hudson, Duncan, Pattison & Shaw, 2015).Conclusion: Incorporating Recommendations for Further ResearchThis author’s PICOT and capstone project include the importance of standard and complete crash carts, equipment and supplies, as a key component of quality outcomes and in helping RN’s to feel in control and ready for an emergency situation. Findings and evidence from the literature review support the PICOT without the need for further research. For example, strong evidence was shown in the articles including such startling findings as that on “…emergency departments generally had [only] 85% of recommended supplies but only 7.2% had all recommended pediatric supplies” (Moreira & Tibbetts, 2015, pg. 337). Further, the literature review supports the importance of standard organization of supplies. Findings from articles supported the idea that efforts to organize supplies and equipment are worth the effort. One article, as an example, cites that the facility at Camp Blanding is “…now far better prepared for the regular stream of urgent and emergency patients who present to the facility” (Studer, N.M., Horsley, G., Godbee, D., 2014, pg. 18). Lastly, the literature review substantiates the need to help RN’s feel more confident and in control during ROSC codes. The evidence is clear. Having standard, well-organized supplies, medication and equipment does positively affect ROSC outcomes. Having standard approaches to how codes are conducted and how clinical staff is trained will help RN’s feel more confident.ReferencesCouper, K., Kimani, P. K., Davies, R. P., Baker, A., Davies, M., Husselbee, N., & Perkins, G. D. (2016). Clinical paper: An evaluation of three methods of in-hospital cardiac arrest educational debriefing: The cardiopulmonary resuscitation debriefing study Resuscitation, (10)5. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm .oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=2d9fab80-8a3a-4a75-ae83 6c48444389d8%40sessionmgr120&hid=117&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ== – AN=S0300957216300594&db=edselpHudson, A. P., Duncan, H. P., Pattison, H. M., & Shaw, R. L. (2015). Developing an intervention to equip nurses for acute life threatening events (ALTEs) in hospital: A Phenomenological Approach to Healthcare Research. Health Psychology, 34(4), 361-370. doi:10.1037/hea0000193Hui, G. C. M., Low, L. P. L., & Lee, I. S. F. (2011). ICU nurses’ perceptions of potential constraints and anticipated support to practice defibrillation: A qualitative study. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 27(4), 186-93. doi:http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm. oclc.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2011.04.007rLeard Dissertation. (2016). How to structure the research limitations section of your dissertation. Retrieved from http://dissertation.laerd .com/what-readers-expect-from-the-research-limitations-section-of-your-dissertation.phpMoreira, R. A., & Tibbetts, L. M. (2015). Pediatric mock codes: an evidence-informed focused pediatric resuscitation program. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 41(4), 337-339. doi:http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.jen.2015.04.011Resuscitation errors: A shocking problem. (2013). Association of Operating Room Nurses. AORN Journal, 98(1) doi:http://dx.doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2013.04.005Studer, N. M., Horsley, G. W., & Godbee, D. C. (2014). Preparedness for resuscitation at a geographically isolated army troop medical clinic: lessons from Camp Blanding, Florida. Journal Of Special Operations Medicine: A Peer Reviewed Journal For SOF Medical Professionals (14)2, 14-19 . Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com. lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=705e2cf0-f63f-42bc-8595-5090b46b7c84%40sessionmgr4008&hid=4110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ== – AN=24952035&db=cmedmVasko, P. (2016). Evidence Evaluation Table. Unpublished manuscript. Grand Canyon University, Phoenix. Arizona.Zhu, A., & Zhang, J. (2016). Meta-analysis of outcomes of the 2005 and 2010 cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines for adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest. American Journal Of Emergency Medicine, (34)6. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm. oclc.org/science/article/pii/S073567571600190X?