| Course | NR 300A Directed Independent Study |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Literature summary |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 300A Week 3
Literature Summary: What Is Known About Sensory Aids for Older Adults in Hospital, and Where the Evidence Stops
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 300A: Directed Independent Study
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Literature Summary: What Is Known About Sensory Aids for Older Adults in Hospital, and Where the Evidence Stops
Introduction
This summary brings together the eight sources gathered in Week 2 into one account, organized by what each body of evidence claims rather than by author. It moves from what is broadly accepted, that hearing loss disrupts communication in hospital, toward the points where the evidence thins, and it stops at the question my checklist is designed to address: whether a simple admission routine can make sure older patients on a medical unit have their own glasses, hearing aids and dentures when they need them.
Hearing Loss Disrupts Communication in Hospital, and Simple Amplification Helps
The most consistent finding in the literature is that hearing loss damages communication between hospitalized older adults and the people caring for them. Shukla et al. (2019) found this in every one of the 13 studies they reviewed, across settings and methods. The same review found that simple measures, including low-cost personal voice amplifiers, improved communication in the studies that tested them. Hodson et al. (2024) reached a similar conclusion with a no-cost method: in a group of 109 older medical inpatients, talking through a stethoscope placed in reverse increased the number of sentences they could repeat correctly, and about half of the patients reported having had trouble communicating with staff because of their hearing. This part of the evidence is broad and consistent, although most studies are small and the outcomes measured are short-term, such as repeating sentences, rather than understanding a discharge plan.
Unaided Hearing Can Make Cognition Look Worse Than It Is
A narrower claim with direct consequences for admission is that cognitive screening scores depend partly on whether the patient can hear the questions. MacDonald et al. (2012) randomized 192 older patients on admission wards and found that those given a hearing augmentation device on the second day scored on average 2 points higher on the Mini-Mental State Examination than the day before, while the control group barely changed. A 2-point difference can move a patient across a threshold that changes how staff treat them. This finding comes from one trial in one department and used a device rather than patients' own hearing aids, but it is the strongest direct evidence that failing to provide hearing support at admission can distort the picture of the patient.
Sensory Protocols Belong in Delirium Prevention, but Their Separate Effect Is Unknown
The link between sensory aids and delirium is widely accepted in practice, and its source is largely Inouye et al. (1999), whose six-part program, including vision and hearing protocols, lowered delirium from 15.0% to 9.9% among older medical patients. That result is the reason nearly every delirium prevention bundle mentions glasses and hearing aids. However, the study was designed to test the bundle, not its parts, and the authors reported only trends toward improvement in vision and hearing impairment during the stay. It is therefore accurate to say that sensory protocols are part of an effective program, and not accurate to say that providing glasses and hearing aids on their own has been shown to prevent delirium. Barnes and Sewell (2014) argue for the value of reading glasses in preventing delirium among geriatric psychiatry inpatients, but their paper is a commentary and survey rather than a test of that claim. The literature here is persuasive but indirect.
Hearing Loss Is Associated With Worse Outcomes, but Association Is Not Proof
Huang et al. (2022) extend the concern beyond communication. Among 621 surgical patients aged 65 and older, greater hearing loss on the audiogram was associated with higher odds of postoperative complications, although not with longer stays or readmission. Two positions are possible from this. One is that hearing loss contributes to complications, perhaps by impairing communication about symptoms or instructions. The other is that hearing loss marks frailty or other conditions that themselves cause complications. The study cannot separate these, and it did not test whether correcting hearing reduces complications. I think the second reading is at least as likely as the first, and the summary will not claim that the checklist can reduce complications.
Where the Evidence Thins: Glasses and Dentures
The evidence narrows sharply once hearing is left behind. For glasses, the only source I found that focused on hospitalized adults was the Barnes and Sewell (2014) commentary, which argues that inexpensive readers are frequently missing from these units, but does not measure outcomes. For dentures, the only source was Mann and Doshi (2017), which counted 695 dentures reported lost across 11 hospital trusts in England over five years and substantial reimbursement costs. Neither source says what happens to patients who are without their glasses or dentures during a stay. The honest summary is that glasses and dentures belong on a sensory aid checklist mainly to prevent loss and discomfort, supported by common sense and by cost, rather than by outcome research.
Checklists for Sensory Aids Are Easily Ignored
The closest study to my project is the quality improvement work of Arifaj et al. (2025), carried out on a single geriatric ward in England. Staff education about the electronic property form produced no significant rise in its use, and fewer than one in five bedside checklists were completed. Even so, the two measures together cut by about a third the number of patients for whom nobody knew whether they needed an aid. That is an encouraging result and a warning at the same time: awareness improved, but the checklist itself was mostly not used. The report does not say why, which is the question my usability trial is best placed to answer.
Where the Summary Stops
The literature supports three things with reasonable confidence: hearing loss harms communication in hospital, simple amplification helps, and unaided hearing can lower cognitive screening scores. It supports including sensory protocols in delirium prevention, though not their independent effect. It says little about glasses and dentures beyond loss. And the one study of a sensory aid checklist suggests that staff may not complete it. No study I found tested whether a short admission routine on an American general medical ward makes sure patients have their own aids, and whether nurses will complete it on a busy night. That is the point at which the evidence stops and the checklist begins, and the usability trial in Week 6 is designed to answer the second part of that question.
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
NR 300A Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 3 product turns your annotated bibliography into a synthesized summary, usually four to five pages in APA. It should be organized by claims or themes rather than one source at a time. Start with what is broadly accepted and move toward the points where evidence is weaker or disagrees. When sources allow two readings, state both and say which carries more weight. Show the search behind any claim that little research exists. Explain any source from the bibliography you drop. The summary should end at the gap your project addresses, so the sponsor can see why the product is needed and what it can and cannot claim.
Inside the NR 300A Week 3 example
The summary opens by stating its method: eight sources organized by claim. The first claim rests on Shukla et al. (2019) and the amplifier evidence. The second uses MacDonald et al. (2012) to show screening scores depend on hearing. The third weighs Inouye et al. (1999) and admits the sensory protocols' separate effect is unknown. The fourth presents Huang et al. (2022) with two possible readings and says which is stronger. The fifth notes thin evidence for glasses and dentures, with Barnes and Sewell (2014) and Mann and Doshi (2017). The sixth uses Arifaj et al. (2025) on ignored checklists. The close lists what the literature supports and where it stops.
Where the points sit in the NR 300A Week 3 rubric
A sponsor reading this summary will usually weigh synthesis, accuracy, critical appraisal, identification of the gap and APA. Synthesis carries the most points, which is why every section is headed by a claim and gathers the sources behind it. Accuracy rests on reporting each study's numbers and population correctly. Appraisal is credited when association is separated from proof and when two readings are stated honestly. The gap is earned by narrowing step by step to the point where the checklist must stand. Showing where evidence thins for glasses and dentures protects the claims the final product will make. Consistent APA through all eight sources completes it. Keeping every source from the bibliography, or explaining a drop, completes the account.
NR 300A Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points
The heaviest loss is an account arranged author by author, which reads as notes rather than thinking. A summary that never reaches an unsettled question leaves the project with nothing to stand on. Gaps asserted without the search behind them are risky. Claims with no source, quotations in place of the writer's sentences, sources dropped without explanation, currency ignored on a fast-moving topic and an account much wider than the project all cost points. Four to five pages is typical. This summary can feed the final product's review section. When two sources contradict, present both and judge them. Send your bibliography, and a summary organized by claim can be built from it.
Get a NR 300A Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the brief your faculty sponsor gave for this piece, or the section of the agreement that covers it, and a custom example is written to that scope and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Where the sponsor has already commented on your reading, send those comments too, since they change what the account has to prove.
More NR 300A papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 300A Week 1: Independent Study Project Outline
- NR 300A Week 2: Sensory Aids Annotated Bibliography
- 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 3: Focused Assessment Write-up
- NR 306 Week 3: Head and Neck Write-up
- NR 451 Week 3: Literature Review
- NR 307A Week 3: Disparity Analysis
NR 300A Week 3 questions, answered
How long should the summary run?
The agreement decides, and where it is silent the product decides: an account standing in front of a substantial written study runs longer than one framing a small build. A more useful measure than length is coverage. If a reader could name a position in the field the account never mentions, it is short whatever its word count says.
Is this the same document as the final product's review section?
Sometimes, and it is worth asking. In many studies the Week 3 account becomes the opening of the finished work after revision, which changes how much care it deserves now. Where the sponsor treats it as a standalone exercise it can be written more loosely, but writers rarely regret building it to product standard the first time.
What if two sources contradict each other outright?
Say so, then adjudicate. Name what each one measured, on whom, and under what conditions, then state which result the writer finds more persuasive and what evidence would settle the matter. A summary reporting a contradiction without taking a position has done half the work, and the missing half is the part being graded.
Where can I find a free NR 300A Week 3 sample paper?
The complete Week 3 literature summary on sensory aids in hospital, organized by claim and ending where the evidence stops, is posted on this page.
Where does the evidence stop in the NR 300A Week 3 summary?
It is reasonably strong for hearing loss harming communication and amplification helping, but thin for glasses and dentures and silent on admission routines for patients' own aids on US medical units.