Searching Databases: PICO(T) Question Discussion Guide

Discussion Searching Databases Discussion: Searching Databases When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems. The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format. In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. To Prepare: Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources. Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least two different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles. Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study. It is suggested that an Intervention-type PICOT question be developed as these seem to work best for this course. By Day 3 of Week 4 Post a brief description of your clinical issue of interest. This clinical issue will remain the same for the entire course and will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question. Describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples. By Day 6 of Week 4 Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and provide further suggestions on how their database search might be improved. Hello Kelsie, You are correct when you say that a research question is necessary to perform an effective database search. A few years ago, I worked in a small community hospital located in a rural area in Arizona. I was promoted as Director of Nursing for the Inpatient Unit and the Emergency Department. In our Inpatient Unit, patients were admitted either Med-Surg, Tele, or ICU status. Prior to this position I was working as a Quality Manager where I was directly responsible for submitting files to the third party, we used to conduct our patient surveys. When there were patient complaints, I would speak to the patient, review the chart and conduct the research necessary to determine if the patient complaint was substantiated or unsubstantiated. Most patient complaints were all related to some type of communication error or lack of communication of some sort from medical staff to the patient. As the Director of Nursing, I identified areas where I needed to implement processes or change a process that was currently not effective. One area I concentrated on was physicians and nurses working in a more collaborative manner to improve on better communication amongst medical staff and the patient. I conducted research using the PICOT question; If physicians and nurses rounded together on patients whom are admitted on the inpatient unit, will our patient satisfaction scores improve? I used a journal I found titled, “Implementation of Physician and Nurse Patient Rounding on a 42-bed Medical Unit” and found it to be very useful. The article was helpful and had results of more than one study that was conducted on the Medical Unit. Per the Journal Article, the studies found to be that, Nurses on the unit showed increased satisfaction with their working relationships with the physicians through improved teamwork and collaboration between the two groups and the results of the unit-specific Press Ganey scores showed an increase in patient satisfaction with how staff worked together to care for them (Pritts, 2017). Press Ganey scores increased and nurse turnover decreased (Pritts, 2017). I utilize this study to develop and implement a process improvement plan. I developed a process, implemented he process, trained all staff involved and saw positive changes within a few months. Our patient satisfaction survey scores increased, the outcome was positive and our patients were happy with the care provided to them. Using the PICOT question, I chose really helped me search databases to find a great article I was able to mimic in my own organization. Pritts, K. (2017). Implementation of Physician and Nurse Patient Rounding on a 42-Bed Medical Unit. Medsurg Nursing. Pittman, New Jersey, 23, 6, 408-413, Nov. 2014. ISSN: 1092-0811. NURS_6052_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric Discussion Searching Databases Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Post: Timeliness Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. First Response Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Participation Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric