Posted: March 28th, 2021

NURS 6052N Week 2 – MAIN POST Literature Searches

NURS 6052N
Week 2 – MAIN POST
Literature Searches
In doing research, keywords are valuable in finding great information to support a topic. Keywords are more effective when it is combined in a search with other keywords. It is essential for the researcher to have a database they can rely on and understand how to pull data to support the argument or to give intellectual level analysis on any topic. It is hard to know the level of evidence of hierarchy in all research papers. There is minimal research evaluating the effectiveness of having nurses use external jugular (EJ) vein as an intravenous line, but in the facility where I work at, trained and competent, skilled ER nurses are the only ones allowed to perform EJ.
The topic I chose is allowing nurses to use the external jugular vein as an intravenous line for those patients that have difficulty accessing a vein in critical situations. Educating nurses on how to access an EJ vein to obtain a blood sampling, as well as administration of fluids, medications, parenteral nutrition, chemotherapy, and blood products. External jugular vein cannulation is an integral part of modern medicine and is practiced virtually in every healthcare setting. Venous access allows sampling of blood, as well as administration of fluids, medications, parenteral nutrition, chemotherapy, and blood products (Scales, 2008).
Search terms are keywords that are entered into the database to describe the topic of items that a person wants to retrieve. The database will word-match keywords against the text of the article and deliver results that will match what was entered. The great benefit of keyword searching is the precision (Academic Guides, n.d.). The search terms that were used are the following: (1) external jugular vein, (2) intravenous line, (3) administrating medication, (4) nurses and intravenous line, (5) nurses and external jugular vein. (6) nurses are administrating medication.
A systematic review of the literature synthesizes evidence found in the literature using a research methodology that is clearly articulated. Most of the surveys conducted by the Cochrane, Collaboration are based on randomized controlled trials that investigate the effects of interventions in health care (Houde, 2009). There is no consensus about the definition of evidence nor about what constitutes valuable evidence for Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). Nevertheless, many published evidence hierarchies rank evidence they provide, and in most cases, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are near the top of these hierarchies (Polit & Beck, 2017). The six search terms used to find the three levels of hierarchy. The database articles do not have a label or any section that tells the reader what level of the evidence hierarchy the article falls under, so the evidence hierarchy number results is based on information from abstract and conclusion. Also, from the first five results from each search term using the Walden university database.
Total number of results evaluated for evidence hierarchy: 30
Number of database results for Level I: 1
Number of database results for Level II: 18
Number of database results for Level III: 6
Not enough information was given to determine the level: 5
There was one article that could be considered Level I because of the substantial evidence comes from careful syntheses of multiple studies (Polit & Beck, 2017). One example was when using the search for an external jugular vein. The first article in the search was Randomized Controlled Trial of Central Venous Catheterization (CVC) Through External Jugular Vein (EJV). The study did trial of one hundred patients aged 18–50 years, scheduled for elective surgery requiring CVC, were randomly assigned to either undergo CVC using Seldinger technique with body maneuvers or a control group undergoing CVC without body maneuvers. The study also observed the post-procedure chest radiology and the outcomes included quality of central venous pressure waveform, catheterization attempts, the total time for CVC, and complications. The study also gathers evidence from a previous research study (Magoon, Malhotra, Saini, Sharma & Kaur, 2017). The next highest level, Level II depends on the nature of the inquiry. It can be a single randomized controlled trial, single non-randomized controlled trial, expert opinion, case report, single case-control study, single cohort study, and single in-depth qualitative (Polit & Beck, 2017). Example of the research was a cohort study using the single keyword administrating medication where the aim of this paper is to ascertain the attitudes and experiences of psychiatrists, nurse prescribers, and service users about the prescription of antipsychotic medication (Besenius, Bradley, & Nolan, 2012). In most cases, Level II information was too vague in using one single term to be helpful in the overall research for allowing nurses to use the external jugular vein as an intravenous line. Finally, Level III evidence comes from a study called quasi-experimental or case control. In this level, it is very controlled and not enough variations or relevance to add value to the researcher on having nurses administrate intravenous line using the external jugular vein.
For an effective literature search, the Walden University Library through Thoreau is a good start point to see what multiple databases has on a research topic randomly. This will give a good idea of which databases might have the most information on the topic that is being researched. Then, to help build knowledge based on subject use Google search for a baseline of information and it will also provide peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academic journals through Google Scholar. Once a baseline of data has been established, and multiple databases have given vital information on a topic that is being researched then use Science Direct to further assist in finding peer-reviewed articles to help support the main point of the research.
Science Direct through Walden University library has the green graduation hat logo which means all their journals are peer-reviewed. Peer-reviews are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their fields. It also has popular logo meaning; most students would prefer this database over other similar database. Science Direct only accepts peer-reviewed articles to ensure credibility. Science Direct also provide the scholar contact information which includes: primary author email address and work address for all the other authors.
References
Academic Guides: Keyword Searching: Finding Articles on Your Topic: Searching Basics. (n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2011 from http://academicsguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics
Besenius, C., Bradley, E., & Nolan, P. (2012). Attitudes of psychiatrists, nurses and service users towards prescribing and administrating depot antipsychotic medication. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education, and Practice, 7(1), 9-19.
Houde, S. C. (2009). The systematic review of the literature: A tool for evidence-based policy. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 35(9), 9–12. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Magoon, R., Malhotra, S. K., Saini, V., Sharma, R., & Kaur, J. (2017). The randomized controlled trial of central venous catheterization through external jugular vein: A comparison of success with or without body maneuvers. Indian journal of anesthesia, 61(12), 985.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
Scales, K. (2008). Intravenous therapy: a guide to good practice. British Journal of Nursing, 17(Sup8), S4-S1