NURS 6052 Discussion Searching Databases

NURS 6052 Discussion Searching Databases

Wendy, I acknowledge that you chose an important PICOT question to concentrate on during the study. This is majorly based on your explanation that you work as the clinical nurse manager in the psychiatric unit. Indeed, antipsychotic medications in treating individuals with psychiatric conditions are contentious issues requiring further assessment. Stroup & Gray, 2018) argue that antipsychotic medications are the first-line treatment modalities for people with psychotic disorders. The use of antipsychotics is, however, hampered by their adverse effects, which range from minor tolerability issues (mild sedation and dry mouth), unpleasant tolerability (akathisia, constipation, and sexual dysfunction), painful (acute dystonia), disfiguring (tardive dyskinesia, and weight gain) and fatal (myocarditis and agranulocytosis). As such, it is necessary to critically review the guidelines for using one or more antipsychotics to treat psychosis.

To improve your database search, I recommend including more databases to enhance the quality of the retrieved information. Other databases can be used to search for healthcare-related information. PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, and UpToDate. Chandran et al. (2020) list PubMed as the first-line database to turn to when researching health-related topics. PubMed is hosted by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and offers links to publisher websites for more than 28 million articles. Cochrane Library holds thousands of systematic evidence-based, and high-quality reviews. It is also necessary to incorporate a range of keywords when searching in the database to promote research. For instance, you can use keywords such as antipsychotics, medications, treatment, psychotic conditions, use, psychiatric disorders, and combination therapy in your topic. Using these keywords would give you a range of research articles.

 

References

Chandran, V. P., Khan, S., Kulyadi, G. P., Khera, K., Devi, E. S., Balakrishnan, A. & Thunga, G. (2020). Evidence-based medicine databases: An overview. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science. 10(7): 147-154.

Stroup, T. S., & Gray, N. (2018). Management of common adverse effects of antipsychotic medications. World Psychiatry: official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 17(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20567

library research

The Walden library, MEDLINE, and CINAHL Plus with full text were the three main databases I used for my information search. CLABSI was the first acronym I used for my PICO(T) investigation. Because CLABSI is the central concept and a well-known big problem in our hospitals, I have chosen to use the specific phrase. CINAHL Plus full text yielded roughly 512 results, while peer-reviewed yielded 455. The total number of results obtained from MEDLINE full text was 599. In these findings, I feel there were numerous publications and data to work with. I narrowed my search by focusing on the years 2013 to 2020, and the results were essentially the same. Searching employing Boolean expressions such as AND, OR, and AND, according to Skelly and Ecker (2010), can help focus results. I used AND to narrow down my information. When I searched for “prevention AND intervention” to lower CLABSI in hospitalized patients, for example, 52 peer-reviewed articles came up.

Techniques for improving the PICO(T) question’s rigor and effectiveness

To begin, I was specific in that I used CLABSI to improve the rigor and effectiveness of my PICO(T) investigation. The precision of the keyword produced the expected results. I then applied database filters. According to UAMS (2020), in order to obtain evidence-based information, researchers should use database filters to filter results. I used advance search with the Boolean keyword, limiters such as full text, peer-reviewed, and between 2010-2020 to effectively narrow my findings in the CINAHL database. My score was around 63, which is a good starting point. Then, using the search widgets on the right side of the screen, I was able to quickly obtain the full texts of CINAHL Plus and MEDLINE Plus.

Overactive bladder occurs when nerve signals between the bladder and the brain do not function properly (OAB). OAB affects approximately 30% of men and 40% of women in the United States (Urology Care Foundation,2020). A well-crafted PICOT question aids in the discovery of the best evidence available to influence practice. Before beginning a literature search, the question should be formulated (Melnyk, et al. 2009).

Also Check Out:

PICO(T) Question: Does the InterStim neuromodulator implant for the treatment of Overactive bladder really work by decreasing or even stopping urinary urgency and frequency?

To formulate questions in Evidence Based Practice, the (T) format is used. PICO(T) is a mnemonic derived from:

1. Population/Patient problem: Patients diagnosed with Overactive Bladder.
2. Intervention: Insertion of a neuro modulator implant.
3. Comparison: Alternative treatments such as Diet modification, Bladder training, use of Anticholinergic drugs, Kegel exercises, Hydrodistension of the bladder, Bladder Botox
4. Outcome: Reduction of day and nighttime frequency as well as episodes of uncontrollable urgency.
5. Time: (Time element is not always included): Trial implant for a week, if symptoms improve within a week, a permanent neuromodulator is implanted under the skin of the upper buttock and connected to the sacral nerve by way of a wire tunneled under the skin.

CINAHL Plus with Full Text and Medline with full text were the two databases used for the research.

MEDLINE with full text search:

Original Term: Overactive bladder. This resulted in 10,322 articles. I limited my search to articles within 11 years, only peer reviewed, full text articles When I added search terms using Boolean operators, it resulted in 3 articles.

CINAHL Plus with Full Text search:

Original Term: Overactive bladder resulted in 7,822 articles. When I added search terms using Boolean operators, it resulted in 12 articles.

 

One strategy to increase the effectiveness of a database search for a PICO(T) question is to be specific in using the keywords for your search. I had a difficult time initially finding information for treatments for Overactive bladder, using the InterStim treatment. I also learned that the search cannot be a long, broad search, however it should be disease specific and search using minimal words.  Also know the correct abbreviation of the keywords you want to use in your search, I attempted to use O.B. for Overactive bladder instead of O.A.B, and it yielded no results.

Reference

Library of Congress(n.d.). Boolean Operators and Nesting. Retrieved December 21, 2020 from https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBoolean.html

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Urology Care Foundation. (2020). What is Overactive bladder? Retrieved on December 21, 2020 from https://www.urologyhealth.org/urology-a-z/o/overactive-bladder-(oab)

Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved December 21,2020 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Database Searching Discussion

When you decide to buy a new car, you must first determine what is most important to you. If mileage and dependability are important to you, you will look for data that focuses on these factors rather than color options and sound systems.

 

The same is true when looking for research evidence to help guide your clinical investigation and professional decisions. Creating a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will greatly improve the effectiveness of your search. The PICO(T) format is one such formula.

 

In this Discussion, you will convert a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, allowing you to more effectively and efficiently search electronic databases. You will discuss this PICO(T) question and strategies for improving the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.

 

To Get Ready:

 

Examine the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can serve as the foundation for a clinical investigation.

Examine the materials in the Resources section that provide guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions.

Search at least two different databases in the Walden Library based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. For this assignment, avoid using systematic reviews and instead choose original research articles.

Examine the Resources for ideas and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further investigation. It is suggested that an intervention-type PICOT question be created because these appear to work best for this course.

 

By Week 4’s third day

 

Post a brief description of your clinical concern. This clinical issue will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question throughout the course. Describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned based on your original research, and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, discuss how you might improve the rigor and effectiveness of a database search for your PICO(T) question. Provide specifics and examples.

By Week 4’s Day 6

 

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and offer additional suggestions on how to improve their database search.

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.

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 4 Discussion Rubric

 

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 4

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 4 Discussion

Module 3: Advanced Clinical Inquiry and PICO(T) Questions (Weeks 4-5)

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Value of Clinical Inquiry [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Due By	Assignment
Week 4, Days 1-2	Read the Learning Resources. Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 4, Day 3	Post your initial Discussion post. Begin to compose your Assignment.
Week 4, Days 4-5	Review peer Discussion posts. Compose your peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 4, Day 6	Post two peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 4, Day 7	Wrap up Discussion.
Week 5, Days 1-6	Continue to compose your Assignment.
Week 5, Day 7	Deadline to submit your Assignment.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Create an answerable research question using the PICO(T) question format
• Apply effective search strategies to identify relevant peer-reviewed and systematic reviewed research
• Analyze strategies to increase rigor and effectiveness of database searches for PICO(T) questions
• Analyze levels of evidence in peer-reviewed research

Learning Resources

Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

• Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
• Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)

Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

 

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41–47. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

 

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Searching the Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric

		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