| Course | NR 300A Directed Independent Study |
|---|---|
| Week | 2 |
| Paper type | Annotated bibliography |
| Length | About 1,300 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 300A Week 2
Annotated Bibliography: Glasses, Hearing Aids and Dentures in Hospitalized Older Adults
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 300A: Directed Independent Study
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Annotated Bibliography: Glasses, Hearing Aids and Dentures in Hospitalized Older Adults
How the Set Was Built
I searched PubMed and CINAHL in Week 2 using combinations of hearing aid, hearing loss, eyeglasses, visual impairment, dentures, sensory aid, hospitalized, inpatient and older adult, from 1995 to the present, with help from a librarian on the search terms. Of about 300 results, I read 31 abstracts and 11 full texts, and kept the 8 below. The set includes one older study that fixed the vocabulary for bedside sensory interventions, several recent studies, and one that suggests a checklist alone may not be enough. Each annotation reports what the source establishes, where it sits against my question, and what it leaves open. They are ordered by how much each matters to the project, most important first.
Entries
1. Shukla, A., Nieman, C. L., Price, C., Harper, M., Lin, F. R., & Reed, N. S. (2019). Impact of hearing loss on patient-provider communication among hospitalized patients: A systematic review. American Journal of Medical Quality, 34(3), 284-292.
Establishes (Shukla et al., 2019): in 13 studies of hospitalized older adults, every study found that hearing loss harmed communication between patients and providers, and the interventions tested, including low-cost voice amplifiers, improved it. Relation to my question: this is the strongest support for including hearing on the checklist and for keeping an amplifier on the unit. Leaves open: the studies were small and varied, and none tested an admission routine that makes sure a patient's own hearing aids are in and working.
2. Inouye, S. K., Bogardus, S. T., Jr., Charpentier, P. A., Leo-Summers, L., Acampora, D., Holford, T. R., & Cooney, L. M., Jr. (1999). A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 340(9), 669-676.
Establishes (Inouye et al., 1999): a program of six protocols, two of them for vision and hearing, lowered the rate of delirium among 852 medical patients aged 70 and older from 15.0% in usual care to 9.9%. Relation to my question: it is the reason sensory aids appear in delirium prevention programs at all, and its vocabulary of vision and hearing protocols is the vocabulary I will use. Leaves open: the effect of the sensory protocols on their own cannot be separated from the other four.
3. MacDonald, A. A., Joyson, A., Lee, R., Seymour, D. G., & Soiza, R. L. (2012). The effect of hearing augmentation on cognitive assessment scales at admission to hospital. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(4), 355-361.
Establishes (MacDonald et al., 2012): in a randomized trial of 192 patients with a mean age of 82, a hearing augmentation device raised Mini-Mental State Examination scores by an average of 2.00 points on the second day, against 0.49 in the control group. Relation to my question: it shows that a patient who cannot hear the questions can score as more impaired than they are, which matters on my unit, where a low admission score shapes the whole stay. Leaves open: it tested a device, not the patient's own hearing aids.
4. Hodson, A., Clancy, N., & Foo, I. (2024). The reverse stethoscope technique: A rapid intervention for old age hearing loss. Hospital Practice, 52(1-2), 23-28.
Establishes (Hodson et al., 2024): among 109 medical inpatients over 60, speaking into a stethoscope's diaphragm with the earpieces in the patient's ears raised the mean number of sentences correctly repeated from 2.6 to 3.5, and about half the patients reported past communication problems with staff because of hearing. Relation to my question: it offers a no-cost fallback when a patient's hearing aids are missing and no amplifier is available, which is common at night. Leaves open: one site, a simple repetition test, and no measure of whether understanding of real clinical information improved.
5. Arifaj, B., Shakeel, A., Nyam, L., & Sansom-Ninnes, K. (2025). Improving staff awareness of sensory aid needs and dementia status in an old age ward. BMJ Open Quality, 14(4), e003369.
Establishes (Arifaj et al., 2025): on a UK ward for older people, teaching staff to use an existing electronic property form raised its completion by 14%, not a significant change, and only 18% of a laminated bedside checklist was filled in, although together the two lowered the share of patients whose sensory aid needs were unknown by 32%. Relation to my question: this is the source that disagrees with my plan. It suggests that a checklist alone may be ignored, and it is the closest thing to my project in the literature. Leaves open: one ward, no outcomes for patients, and no detail on why the bedside checklist was so rarely completed.
6. Huang, R. J., Riska, K. M., Gordee, A., Peskoe, S. B., Francis, H. W., Witsell, D. L., & Smith, S. L. (2022). The association between hearing loss and surgical complications in older adults. Ear and Hearing, 43(3), 961-971.
Establishes (Huang et al., 2022): in 621 surgical patients aged 65 and older with audiograms, each 10-decibel increase in hearing loss was associated with 14% higher odds of a postoperative complication, but not with longer stays or readmission. Relation to my question: it supports the importance of hearing in hospitalized older adults, but in surgical rather than medical patients. Leaves open: it is observational and cannot show that correcting hearing would lower complications.
7. Mann, J., & Doshi, M. (2017). An investigation into denture loss in hospitals in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. British Dental Journal, 223(6), 435-438.
Establishes (Mann & Doshi, 2017): 11 hospital trusts in England reported 695 dentures lost over five years, and seven trusts paid more than 357,000 pounds in reimbursements over six years. Relation to my question: it is the only source I found that counts denture loss in hospitals, and it supports a checklist item on where dentures are kept. Leaves open: it says nothing about the effect of missing dentures on eating, speech or recovery, and it comes from a different health system.
8. Barnes, S. S., & Sewell, D. D. (2014). The value and underutilization of simple reading glasses in geropsychiatry inpatient settings. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, 29(8), 657-659.
Establishes (Barnes & Sewell, 2014): a brief review and survey arguing that reading glasses are cheap and often unavailable to older inpatients on geriatric psychiatry units. Relation to my question: the only source in the set about glasses specifically, and it suggests keeping inexpensive readers on the unit. Leaves open: it is a commentary with a survey of units, not a study of patient outcomes.
What the Reading Did to the Plan
The reading changes the plan in three ways, and I emailed the sponsor about all three at the end of Week 2. First, the Arifaj et al. (2025) project is close enough to mine that I will adapt its approach rather than invent one, and its low completion rate means the main result of my usability trial will be whether the checklist is completed at all, not only how long it takes. Second, the evidence on dentures is limited to counts of loss, so the summary will say plainly that dentures are on the checklist to prevent loss, and will not claim effects on eating or recovery that the literature does not support. Third, the Hodson et al. (2024) study adds a no-cost step for nights when hearing aids are missing, and the checklist will include it.
The reading did not show that the question is already answered. No source tested an admission routine for a patient's own aids on a general medical unit in the United States, which is what the checklist will try.
References
Arifaj, B., Shakeel, A., Nyam, L., & Sansom-Ninnes, K. (2025). Improving staff awareness of sensory aid needs and dementia status in an old age ward. BMJ Open Quality, 14(4), Article e003369. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003369
Barnes, S. S., & Sewell, D. D. (2014). The value and underutilization of simple reading glasses in geropsychiatry inpatient settings. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias, 29(8), 657-659. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317514539034
Hodson, A., Clancy, N., & Foo, I. (2024). The reverse stethoscope technique: A rapid intervention for old age hearing loss. Hospital Practice, 52(1-2), 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.2024.2320067
Huang, R. J., Riska, K. M., Gordee, A., Peskoe, S. B., Francis, H. W., Witsell, D. L., & Smith, S. L. (2022). The association between hearing loss and surgical complications in older adults. Ear and Hearing, 43(3), 961-971. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001152
Inouye, S. K., Bogardus, S. T., Jr., Charpentier, P. A., Leo-Summers, L., Acampora, D., Holford, T. R., & Cooney, L. M., Jr. (1999). A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 340(9), 669-676. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199903043400901
MacDonald, A. A., Joyson, A., Lee, R., Seymour, D. G., & Soiza, R. L. (2012). The effect of hearing augmentation on cognitive assessment scales at admission to hospital. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(4), 355-361. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e3182107e88
Mann, J., & Doshi, M. (2017). An investigation into denture loss in hospitals in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. British Dental Journal, 223(6), 435-438. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.728
Shukla, A., Nieman, C. L., Price, C., Harper, M., Lin, F. R., & Reed, N. S. (2019). Impact of hearing loss on patient-provider communication among hospitalized patients: A systematic review. American Journal of Medical Quality, 34(3), 284-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860618798926
The Chamberlain NR 300A Week 2 instructions
The Week 2 product in this independent study is usually an annotated bibliography agreed in the outline, often with a minimum number of sources. Each annotation should say what the source establishes, how strong it is and how it relates to your question. The bibliography should show the search: the databases, terms and dates used. Include at least one source that disagrees or complicates the picture. If the reading changes your plan, or shows the question is already answered, report that to the sponsor. Use APA 7 consistently across entries. Keep annotations roughly even in length, and say which sources matter most for the work that follows.
How the NR 300A Week 2 example is put together
The bibliography opens by describing the search: PubMed and CINAHL, terms for each aid and setting, 1995 to the present and a librarian's help, narrowing about 300 results to eight. Each entry then makes the same three moves: the full reference, what it establishes with its numbers and how it relates to the checklist. Examples include Shukla et al. (2019) finding hearing loss harmed communication in all 13 studies, MacDonald et al. (2012) showing cognitive scores rising with amplification and Arifaj et al. (2025) showing a bedside checklist filled in only 18 percent of the time. The closing section lists three changes to the plan, reported to the sponsor.
Reading the NR 300A Week 2 grading rubric
With no standard rubric, the sponsor typically judges this bibliography on the relevance and quality of sources, the analytical depth of each annotation, links to the proposed work, the search process and APA accuracy. Annotation depth carries the most weight, so every entry ties its source to the checklist in a sentence. Quality is shown by a mix: an older study that fixed the vocabulary, recent work and one source that disagrees. The search description lets the sponsor trust any claim that a gap exists. Reporting how the reading changed the plan meets the expectation that the bibliography does work. Consistent APA entries with DOIs protect the formatting points. Naming which two sources matter most helps the sponsor plan the next weeks.
NR 300A Week 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The costliest annotation summarizes and stops, never touching the study. Discovering the question is already answered and hiding it turns a useful finding into a concealed one. A set made of whatever came back first, where every source agrees, looks unsearched. Lists that never rank importance leave the sponsor to do it. No dissenting source, uneven annotation lengths, drifting reference style, superseded guidance cited as current and fewer items than agreed all cost points. Eight to ten sources is common. The bibliography can grow after Week 2 if you report it. Share your question and the sources you have so far, and the annotations can be drafted for them.
Get a NR 300A Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send us the reading requirement your faculty sponsor set, along with the agreement it belongs to, and an example bibliography written to that exact brief comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If your sponsor wants a particular referencing style or a set number of entries, say so and the example is built to it rather than to a house pattern.
More NR 300A papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 300A Week 1: Independent Study Project Outline
- NR 300A Week 3: Literature Summary
- NR 300A Week 4: Progress Memo
- NR 300A Week 5: Draft Section
- NR 300A Week 6: Methods Note
- NR 300A Week 7: Revision Plan
- NR 300A Week 8: Final Reflection
- NR 305 Week 2: Health History Write-up
- NR 306 Week 2: Skin and Nails Write-up
- NR 451 Week 2: Practice Problem Proposal
- NR 307A Week 2: Self-audit Reflection
NR 300A Week 2 questions, answered
What if the literature says my question is already settled?
Say so in the closing paragraph and propose the smaller question that is still open. A bibliography quietly hiding this costs more later, when the same finding surfaces in a draft with three weeks left. Sponsors treat an early, evidenced request to narrow a study as competence rather than failure, because it protects the work they put their name to.
How many sources belong in it?
Whatever the agreement says, and where it says nothing, ask instead of guessing, since the number suiting a short paper and the number suiting a term-long build differ sharply. The working ceiling is however many the writer can annotate properly, and a shorter list carrying real relevance sentences outranks a longer one that carries none.
Can the bibliography change after Week 2?
Yes, and in most studies it does. Sources drop out once the argument tightens, and new ones arrive with the draft. What matters is that the final product does not cite a set the sponsor has never seen, so flag the additions in a later update rather than letting them appear silently at the end.
Where can I find a free NR 300A Week 2 sample paper?
The full Week 2 annotated bibliography of eight sources on sensory aids in hospital, with the search description and the changes to the plan, is printed below.
How did the NR 300A Week 2 reading change the study?
It led the writer to adapt Arifaj and colleagues' approach, add a no-cost fallback for missing hearing aids and limit claims about dentures to loss, all reported to the sponsor.