The interpretation of research in health care is essential to decision making. By understanding research, health care providers can identify risk factors, trends, outcomes for treatment, health care costs and best practices. To be effective in evaluating and interpreting research, the reader must first understand how to interpret the findings. You will practice article analysis in Topics 2, 3, and 5.

For this assignment:

Search the GCU Library and find three different health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles that appear in the Topic Materials or textbook. Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis 1” template.

Refer to the “Patient Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital-at-Home and Usual Hospital Care for COPD Exacerbations: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” in conjunction with the “Article Analysis Example 1,” for an example of an article analysis.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be 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. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

AttachmentsHLT-362V-RS2-ArticleAnalysisExample-1.docx
HLT-362V-RS2-ArticleAnalysis-1-Template.docx

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

  

To prepare:

Review the articles presented in this week’s Learning Resources and analyze each study’s use of nonparametric tests.

Critically analyze each article, considering the following questions in your analysis:

What are the goals and purpose of the research study each article describes?

How are nonparametric tests used in each study? What are the results of their use?

Why are parametric methods (t tests and ANOVA) inappropriate for the statistical analysis of each study’s data?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each study (e.g., study design, sampling, and measurement)?

How could the findings and recommendations of each study contribute to evidence-based practice in the health care field?

Reflect on the quantitative statistical analyses presented throughout this course in the research literature, the Learning Resources, media presentations, and those articles you reviewed for your abbreviated research proposal.

Ask yourself: Which method is most commonly used in research studies that pertain to my area of nursing practice, and why this might be so?

TO COMPLTE

Post 1-2 PAGES PAPER ON : A cohesive response addresses the following:

Critically analyze each article, including the items noted above.

Identify one statistical analysis method that you found recurring in many of the articles you used in your literature review for your research proposal. This method does not necessarily have to be nonparametric.

Based on your area of nursing practice ( family Nurse Practitioner) , which method of statistical analysis is most frequently used in the research literature? Why do you think other forms of statistical analysis are less frequently used? Provide a rationale for your response.

References

Gray, J.R., Grove, S.K., & Sutherland, S. (2017). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (8th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier.

Chapter 25, “Using Statistics to Determine Differences”

Chapter 8, “Chi-Square and Nonparametric Tests”

See these attached articles :

Fisher, K., Orkin, F., & Frazer, C. (2010). Utilizing conjoint analysis to explicate health care decision making by emergency department nurses: A feasibility study. Applied Nursing Research, 23(1), 30–35. doi:10.1016/j.apnr.2008.03.

Tjia, J., Field, T., Garber, L., Donovan, J., Kanaan, A., Raebel, M., … Gurwitz, J. (2010). Development and pilot testing of guidelines to monitor high-risk medications in the ambulatory setting. American Journal of Managed Care, 16(7), 489–496.

Development and pilot testing of guidelines to monitor high-risk medications in the ambulatory setting. American Journal of Managed Care, 16(7) by Tjia, J., Field, T., Garber, L., Donovan, J., Kanaan, A., Raebel, M., & Gurwitz, J. Copyright 2010 by INTELLISPHERE, LLC. Reprinted by permission of INTELLISPHERE, LLC via the Copyright Clearance Center.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need someone who is good at APA tables and statistical analysis. The information is already in the attachment. The tables and charts must be in APA format   

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results

This chapter will review the collected data, evaluate methods used to analyze the data, and appraise the findings of the study. The purpose of this quantitative project was to determine the degree of relationship between the independent variale of nurse’s participation in an evidence-based CLABSI prevention using CHG bathing and the dependent variables of lowering CLABSI rates in patients with CVCs in a healthcare facility in Texas. The quantitative research methodology was selected as a means to review the collected data, evaluate and analyze the data and to appraise the findings of the quality improvement project. The purpose of the project is to explore the problem of CLABSIs and examine available measures to prevent, control, reduce incidences, and to implement a quality improvement project set forth by this investigator to decrease CLABSIs. More importantly, the project seeks to contribute to the field of evidence-based practices in nursing by showing the role of the nurse in helping to reduce HAIs, such as CLABSIs, in the adult critical care setting. In particular, the present project proposes nurse training on the CUSP toolkit and additional CLABSI maintenance, including CHG bathing as an intervention to prevent CLABSI. Central line Venous Catheters (CVCs) are commonly used for inpatients hospitalized in acute care Intensive Care Units (ICU) to administer blood products, intravenous fluids, parenteral nutrition, and other types of medications, such as antibiotics. The use of catheters is, however, linked to the risk of developing a hospital-acquired infection (HAI), known as Central-line Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) mainly caused by microorganisms found on the external surface of the patient’s skin, improper hand hygiene, or in the fluid pathway post-catheter insertion. Notably, CVCs have been cited as the most frequent and costliest causes of bloodstream infections (Haddadin & Regunath., 2019). CLABSI prevention is one of seven requirements by the Joint Commission for hospitals to accredited nursing care centers and listed as a National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) NPSG.07.04.01 (Yokoe et al., 2018).

Evidence-based practices, including CHG bathing, adequate hand hygiene, and clear de-escalation protocols for central lines that are no longer medically necessary, were utilized. The Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) is a program designed to teach and enhance patient safety awareness as well as the quality of nursing care (Basinger, 2015). The project will implement CUSP, which is comprised of five basic steps. The CUSP process starts with providing education on the CUSP Central-line maintenance bundle that includes chlorohexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing, followed by the identification of weaknesses and risks in patient safety, then the partnering of a senior executive of the critical care unit, learning from the flaws, and the execution of communication and teamwork tools (Basinger, 2015). The core CUSP toolkit (appendix B) gives clinical teams the training resources and tools to apply the CUSP CHG bathing intervention for this project to prevent CLABSIs.

The present project will consist of audit tools on awareness and compliance, like the AHRQ CUSP CLABSI Central Line Maintenance Audit Form and CUSP toolkit (appendix B) in which proper maintenance of CLABSI is ensured (Baldassarre, Finkelston, Decker, Lewis, & Niesley, 2015). A CUSP CLABSI maintenance audit tool (Appendix B) was used on the nurses providing care on those patients with CVCs were used within the adult ICU at Texas hospital, to help in determining the CLASBI maintenance bundle compliance. The results of the project were analyzed using the necessary statistical methods to help in establishing the conclusion of the results. The Texas hospital’s nursing data portal was used to gather statistical data that will determine if CHG use has helped reach the benchmark goal of SIR = 75th percentile and the Goal Process Measures or KPIs = 90% compliance compared to other hospitals in the division. Currently, in the last quarter of 2019, the benchmark of the 75th percentile has been achieving post quality improvements that include the addition of CHG bathing. CUSP CLABSI maintenance audit tool (Appendix B) (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Statistical significance was calculated at a p-value of < .05 and a 95% confidence interval. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) developed and used standardized infection ratios (SIRs) to measure healthcare-associated infection (HAI) incidence (Soe, Gould, Pollock, & Edwards, 2015). 

The Infection rate is calculated using the overall percentage of infection by dividing the number of new cases by the average census and multiplying by 100. For more specific rates, the number will be provided by dividing the number of new cases by the total resident days and multiply by 1000, which gives you the number of infections per 1000 resident days (Liu et al., 2016). Standardized Infection Ratio (SRI) is expressed as a ratio and is the comparison of the actual number of HAIs to the predicted number of HAIs in a healthcare organization. This value is based upon data reported to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) during a specified time period. The Hospital Corporation of America’s (HCA) goal is 75th percentile. A SIR can only be calculated if there is at least one predicted infection

Goal: SIR = 75th percentile

To assist in determining if patient outcomes could be improved using simulation 

activities, a rural healthcare facility in Southeast Texas, was chosen to conduct the project. The methodology used for this project was quantitative. A quantitative methodology was chosen to provide absolute value to the rate of incidence or occurrence of adverse events to support measurement of the difference between pre- and post-simulation intervention. A quasi-experimental design was used as participants were not randomly selected. This approach suited the request of the institution to include nurses working in the ED. 

Using comparative analysis, the CUSP CLABSI Central Line Maintenance Audit Form (appendix B) shows > 90 percent compliance, the data met the key performance indicators (KPIs) for a decrease in CLABSI and it’s compliance with evidence based standars has brought down CLABSI infection rates. The Goal Process Measures or KPIs (key performance indicators) = 90% compliance. The bullet graph (Table 1) at the top right corner of Nursing Data Portal trending screens, outlines how to read and interpret progress on performance milestones. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the collected data, how it was analyzed, and then to present the results. 

Table 1

Table 1 shows the Hospital KPI performance graph on CHG bathing from the organization’s Nursing Data Portal. The table shows the prior month and current month percentage labeled 0% to 100%. Moving from left to right, the graph shows the organization’s divisional average at 50% and next the HCA corporate average of 70%. Aspiration goals for CHG bathing are set for the 75th percentile with higher aspirational goals set at 100% or in the 90th percentile. 

Table 2[A1] 

In the present project, a CVC maintenance bundle checklist (Appendix D) was used to observe nurses in the adult ICUs of an acute Texas hospital. The observation will involve the Central Line Audit Form (Appendix B) comparing nurse’s compliance regarding CVC maintenance and any significant definite statistical decrease in the reported standardize infection rates and was done for one month (Table 3). In 2019 in the first two quarters, the facility has already reported 20 HAIs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) (Painter, 2018). From May to September (five-month trend) the Texas hospital was at 96% overall performance, and the division in which it belongs, the Gulf Coast Division, was at 97% with the goal of overall performance being 98% of all HCA hospitals (Table 2). [A2] The next five-month trend from August to November, the Texas hospital was at 95% overall performance, and the division in which it belongs, the Gulf Coast Division, was at 89% with the goal of overall performance being 98% of all HCA hospitals (Table 2). CLABSI infection and prevention are a factor in the overall performance both at the local, division and national levels. Other size hospitals in Texas have an average of 15 CLABSI per year (Liu et al., 2016). The present project will apply the quantitative approach, which was used in data collection and analysis. The present project will consist of audit tools on awareness and compliance, like the AHRQ CUSP CLABSI Central Line Maintenance Audit Form and CUSP toolkit (appendix B) in which maintenance of CLABSI is ensured (Baldassarre, Finkelston, Decker, Lewis, & Niesley, 2015). A CUSP CLABSI Central Line Maintenance Audit Form (appendix B) on the nurses providing care on those patients with CVCs was used within the adult ICU at Texas hospital, to help in determining CLASBI maintenance CHG bathing compliance. The results of the project were analyzed using the necessary statistical methods to help in establishing the conclusion of the results. CUSP CLABSI maintenance audit tool (Appendix B) (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Statistical significance was calculated at a p-value of < .05 at 5.59 or 5% and a 95% confidence interval. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Healthcare Safety [A3] Network (NHSN) developed and used standardized infection ratios (SIRs) to measure healthcare-associated infection (HAI) incidence (Soe, Gould, Pollock, & Edwards, 2015). The Infection rate calculation calculated using the overall percentage of infection by dividing the number of new cases by the average census and multiplying by 100. For more specific rates, divide the number of new cases by total resident days and multiply by [A4] 1000, which gives you the number of infections per 1000 resident days (Liu et al., 2016). Using comparative analysis, if the CUSP CLABSI Central Line Maintenance Audit Form (appendix B) shows 90 percent compliance, the data met the KPIs for a decrease in CLABSI. In the present project, a CVC maintenance bundle checklist (Appendix E) was used to observe nurses in the adult ICUs of an acute Texas hospital. The observation involved the Central Line Audit Form (Appendix B) comparing nurses’ compliance regarding [A5] CVC maintenance and any significant definite statistical decrease in the reported standardize infection rates and was done for one month.

The following clinical question will guide this quantitative project: 

Q: In adult patients with central line catheters, how does staff training on the CUSP CLABSIs maintenance CHG bathing to reduce the incidence of CLABSIs (Central Line-Associated Blood-stream Infections) compared to standard care over one month?

Standard care here is defined as procedural pause, aseptic techniques, hand hygiene, and optimal site selection, to protect the insertion site and to take maximal sterile precautions (Advani, Lee, Long, Schmitz, & Camins, 2018).

    

Criterion

Learner Score
 (0, 1, 2, or 3)

Chairperson Score
   (0, 1, 2, or 3)

Comments or Feedback

 

INTRODUCTION (TOTHE CHAPTER)

This section of Chapter 4 briefly restates   the problem statement, the methodology, the clinical question(s) or   phenomena, and offers a statement about what will be covered in this chapter.   

1

 

Re-introduces the purpose of the practice   project.

1

 

Briefly describes the project methodology   and/or clinical question(s) tested.

1

Develop project methodology.

 

Provides an orienting statement about what   will be covered in the chapter.

2

 

Section is written in a way that is well   structured, has a logical flow, uses correct paragraph structure, uses   correct sentence structure, uses correct punctuation, and uses correct APA   format. 

2

 

NOTE:   Once the document has been approved by your chairperson and your committee   and is ready to submit for review, please remove all of these assessment   tables from this document.

Score 0   (not present); 1(unacceptable; needs substantial edits); 2 (present, but   needs some editing); 3 (publication ready).

Descriptive Data

A CHG bath/treatment must be given each day (based off midnight census) for a patient in the adult ICU with a central line, hemodialysis catheter, PICC, midline, or accessed port, and the CHG bath must be documented as per the Texas hospital’s policy. The Texas hospital utilizes Meditech 5.6.x Source System to documents daily CHG bathing (Appendix F). CHG bathing is tracked through the hospital’s Nursing Data Portal, a division-wide analytics program. CHG bathing is tracked through the Texas hospital’s Nursing Data Portal, a division-wide analytics program. This portal can track CHG compliance, date and time of bath, CVC placement, type of lumens, date and time of access, and any reason CHG bathing was not performed (Appendix E) on the CVC patient, both intervention and nonintervention groups were determined via the CUSP CLABSI Maintenance Audit form. 

The CUSP CLABSI Maintenon Audit form asks the following questions: Was the need for a central line for this patient discussed on patient rounds? Was good hand hygiene used by all personnel involved in line care for this patient (i.e., handwashing with soap and water or with alcohol-based hand sanitizes. If the line was percutaneously placed, was this line placed in a recommended site? Was the dressing changed during this shift? Was Chloraprep or 2% chlorhexidine in 70% Isopropyl alcohol used for skin antisepsis? Were central line tubing and all additions (secondary tubing, etc.) changed during this shift? Was there blood return from each lumen? Was chlorhexidine impregnated BioPatch used? Was a chlorhexidine impregnated occlusive dressing used? Was an antibiotic coated catheter used at insertion? What will you change to improve line maintenance practices? (Appendix B and E). 

A CHG bath/treatment must be given each day for a patient in the ICU with a central line, hemodialysis catheter, PICC, midline, or accessed port, and the CHG bath must be documented in Meditech 5.6x. per the Texas hospital’s policy. From the nursing data portal, this project  the project investigator was able to gather statistical data that determined that CHG use has helped reach the goal of SIR = 75th percentile and the Goal Process Measures or KPIs of 90% compliance. Tallied scores (Table 4) were entered into SPSS Statistics program to give a percentage of CUSP CVC intervention and non-intervention groups with the number of new CLABSI patients in each group. This KPI was determined by a decrease in CLABSI rates. Occurrences of events constitute discrete data and are recorded in whole numbers and into various categories (Ali & Bhaskar, 2016). Entered in the SPSS program was the independent variable, which is all the nurses in the present project. This group was further divided into two variables an intervention group and a non-intervention group. The intervention group being nurses implementing CUSP CLABSI maintenance bundle CHG bathing and non-interventional group nurses who are attending patients without CHG bathing. All 60 comprised of 30 nurses in each group were coded in Camel case and number, for example, Nurs1 to maintain confidentiality. Dependent variables or numberof infections entered into the SPPS program the quantitative CUSP CLABSI maintenance CHG bathing intervention performed in the adult ICU at Texas hospital. Data entered will allow the investigator to create statistical graphs such as histogram, bar charts, Tukey box plots, line graphs, and scatterplots to give a visual representation of the collected data. The investigator expects that the CUSP intervention groups will have a level of statistical significance of lower CLABSI. CUSP Central line maintenance bundle compliance was measured with the CUSP CLABSI Central line Maintenance Audit Form (appendix B) with the reported standard infection ratio (SIR). The present project shows that the SIR will decrease with the addition of the CHG bathing, and using inferential statistics.

Calculation of the p-value and paired t-test was completed to compare the means of the sample groups (intervention and nonintervention) (Table 3). Statistical significance was calculated at a p-value of < .05 and a 95% confidence interval. Tallied compliance scores from the CUSP CVC audit form were entered SPSS Statistics program to give a percentage of CUSP CVC intervention and non-intervention groups with the number of new CLABSI patients in each group.

The information filled in the audit (Appendix B) were collected and coded to help in carrying out an unbiased de-identified analysis (See Table 4). The coded data were analyzed using the SPSS software to assist in getting the quantitative aspects of the data (Mihas, 2019). Calculation of standard deviation, p-value, and paired t-test was completed to compare the means of the sample groups. Statistical significance was calculated at a p-value of < .05 and a 95% confidence interval. Statistical tests are used to see if the difference between the number of actual infections, and the number of predicted infections are due to just chance alone. If it is doubtful that the difference is due to chance, then the difference is called “statistically significant.” If the SIR is less than 1, and the finding is statistically significant, then the facility’s performance is labeled “Better than Expected.” If the SIR is greater than 1, and the finding is statistically significant, then the facility’s performance is labeled “Worse than Expected.” If the SIR is not statistically significant, then the facility’s SIR is “In the expected range” (Saman & Kavanagh, 2013). When the predicted number of infections is less than 1, then the numbers are too small to compare.” Equally, the investigator used descriptive aspects of the data to assist in making meaning out of any complex scientific elements of the data. The analysis of the data is critical clinically in achieving the objective of the project and answering the clinical questions regarding CLABSI prevention and CHG maintenance (Saman & Kavanagh, 2013). 

Table 3

   

CHG Audit Dates

30-days pre- intervention

CHG Intervention 

No CHG Intervention

No of Infection

with CHG Intervention

No of Infection

without CHG Intervention

SIR 

Standard Infection Ratio

 

10/15-10/21

0

0

1

1

1

 

10/22-10/28

0

0

1

0

1

 

10/29-11/4

0

0

0

1

0

 

11/5-11/14

0

0

0

1

0

 

Mean

0

0

0.5

0.75

0.5

 

Standard Deviation

0

0

0

0.4

0

 

 

CHG Audit Dates

30-days poet-intervention

CHG Intervention 

No CHG Intervention

No of Infection

with Intervention

No of Infection

without Intervention

SIR

Standard Infection Ratio

 

11/15 -11/21

42

18

0

1

1

 

11/22 – 11/28

47

13

0

1

1

 

11/29-12/06

51

9

0

0

< 1

 

12/07 – 12/15

58

2

0

0

< 1

 

Mean

51.6

10.5

0

0.5

–

 

Standard Deviation

6.7

5.9

0

0.5

–

                

CVC/ PICC Line Days –     Current Census for Clear Lake (Campus: Clear Lake)

Date_______________

 

      

Nurse

De-identified

(Nurs1-Nurs60)

Location

ICU/NTICU/CCU

/CVICU

Patient

De-identified

(P1-P30)

Admit Date

Insertion Site

Location

Right/Left

Type

of Catheter

Start Date

CUSP

Audit

CHG Bath

(Y/N[A6] )

 

Nurs1

G.ICU

P1

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen double

–

Y

 

Nurs2

G.ICU

P2

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs3

G.ICU

P3

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs4

G.ICU

P4

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs5

G.ICU

P5

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

N

 

Nurs6

G.ICU

P6

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs7

G.ICU

P7

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs8

G.ICU

P8

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

N

 

Nurs9

G.ICU

P9

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs10

G.ICU

P10

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs11

G.ICU

P11

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs12

G.ICU

P12

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs13

G.ICU

P13

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs14

G.ICU

P14

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen double

–

Y

 

Nurs15

G.ICU

P15

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs16

G.ICU

P16

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs17

G.ICU

P17

–

ARM

RIGHT

Midline

–

Y

 

Nurs18

G.ICU

P18

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs19

G.ICU

P19

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs20

G.ICU

P20

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs21

G.ICU

P21

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs22

G.ICU

P22

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs23

G.ICU

P23

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen double

–

Y

 

Nurs24

G.ICU

P24

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs25

G.ICU

P25

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs26

G.ICU

P26

–

ARM

RIGHT

Midline

–

Y

 

Nurs27

G.ICU

P27

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

N

 

Nurs28

G.ICU

P28

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs29

G.ICU

P29

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs30

G.ICU

P30

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs31

G.ICU

P31

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs32

G.ICU

P32

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

N

 

Nurs33

G.ICU

P33

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs34

G.ICU

P34

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen double

–

Y

 

Nurs35

G.ICU

P35

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs36

G.ICU

P36

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs37

G.ICU

P37

–

ARM

RIGHT

Midline

–

N

 

Nurs38

G.ICU

P38

–

ARM

CVC multi-lumen triple

–

N

 

Nurs39

G.ICU

P39

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs40

G.ICU

P40

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs41

G.ICU

P41

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

N

 

Nurs42

G.ICU

P42

–

ARM

RIGHT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

N

 

Nurs43

G.ICU

P42

–

ARM

LEFT

CVC multi lumen double

–

N

 

Nurs44

G.ICU

P43

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs45

G.ICU

P44

–

ARM

RIGHT

CVC multi lumen triple

–

Y

 

Nurs46

G.ICU

P45

–

ARM

LEFT

Dialysis catheter triple

–

Y

 

Nurs47

G.ICU

P46

–

ARM

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

 

Read chapter 1 and 2 of your textbook

 Do the following exercises:

Ex: 1.2 and 1.4 page 6

Ex: 1.6 page 8

Ex: 1.10 page 17

Ex: 1.12 and 1.14 page 18

Ex: 1.16 page 19

Ex: 2.4 page 30

Answer the following questions

2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.9, 2.16, 2.17 on page 40

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"