| Course | NR 505 Advanced Research Methods: Evidence-Based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Evidence-based practice proposal |
| Length | About 1,180 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 505 Week 8
Evidence-Based Practice Proposal: Stop Four-Hourly Gastric Residual Checks for Supine Ventilated Adults on Our Medical ICU, Keep a 500 mL Threshold for Prone Patients, and Audit Calories and Vomiting With a Stopping Rule
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 505: Advanced Research Methods: Evidence-Based Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evidence-Based Practice Proposal: Stop Four-Hourly Gastric Residual Checks for Supine Ventilated Adults on Our Medical ICU, Keep a 500 mL Threshold for Prone Patients, and Audit Calories and Vomiting With a Stopping Rule
The Question in Its Final Wording
The question this term began with, settled in Week 2, asked whether dropping our routine four-hourly residual checks, with feeds held above 250 mL, would let ventilated adults on early gastric feeding in a medical ICU receive more of their prescribed calories in their first week of feeding, and whether it could do so with no rise in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Eight weeks of reading have answered part of that question well and part of it poorly.
The recommendation that follows is narrower than the question, because the evidence is narrower than the question. The unit should stop routine four-hourly residual checks for ventilated patients on gastric feeding who are lying on their backs or sides, and judge intolerance by vomiting, regurgitation and abdominal distension. For patients in the prone position, whom the strongest trial excluded, the unit should keep residual checks for now but raise the threshold for holding feeds from 250 mL to 500 mL.
Studies Named by What They Can Show
Each source is named by its design, because the design decides what it can support.
Table 1
Evidence for the Proposal, by Design
| Source | Design | What it can show | What it cannot show |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reignier et al. (2013) | Multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, 449 analyzed | Stopping residual checks did not raise pneumonia beyond a 10-point margin, and more patients reached their calorie goal | Effects in prone patients, who were excluded; effects of four-hourly rather than six-hourly checks |
| Zhang et al. (2026) | Single-center randomized noninferiority trial, 104 patients | Once-daily checks were not shown noninferior for intolerance; the result is inconclusive | That less monitoring is safe or harmful |
| McClave et al. (2016) | Clinical practice guideline | Expert synthesis advising against routine residual monitoring | New evidence beyond the studies it reviewed |
| Metheny et al. (2005) | Measurement study, paired readings in 62 adults | The same stomach yields different residuals through different tubes | Whether checking residuals changes outcomes |
| Abukari and Acheampong (2021) | Descriptive qualitative study | How clinicians describe feeding decisions in one setting | Any effect of a practice |
Note. Only the randomized trials can support a claim about the effect of changing the routine.
The Claim, Stated Plainly
The claim this proposal makes is limited to what the randomized evidence supports: for ventilated adults on early gastric feeding who are not prone, stopping routine residual checks is unlikely to increase pneumonia and is likely to increase the calories they receive (Reignier et al., 2013). The guideline supports the same direction (McClave et al., 2016). The measurement study adds a reason the routine may not work, since the number it produces depends on the tube (Metheny et al., 2005), but it does not by itself show that stopping helps. The qualitative study adds nothing about effect; its value is in reminding me that any change has to work with how clinicians already decide about feeding.
The claim does not extend to prone patients. For them, the proposal adopts the guideline's suggestion that, where residuals are still measured, feeds should not be held for volumes under 500 mL, which reduces interruptions without abandoning a check that no trial has yet tested removing in that group.
Where the Evidence Runs Out
Three gaps remain, and the proposal should state them rather than bury them. The first is the prone population, discussed above. The second is the frequency comparison: the French trial compared stopping residual checks with six-hourly checks, and my unit checks every four hours. The difference likely strengthens the case, since four-hourly checks cause more interruptions, but it is an inference, not a finding. The third is the outcome. The trials measured pneumonia and intolerance; neither measured aspiration directly, and the only recent trial of reduced monitoring was inconclusive about intolerance (Zhang et al., 2026). My unit's staff are most afraid of aspiration, and the evidence cannot speak to it as directly as they would want.
These gaps do not reverse the recommendation. They shape how it is introduced and what the unit watches afterward.
How the Change Would Be Made
The change requires a revision of the unit's feeding policy, approved by the ICU medical director and the nutrition committee, and a short education session for nurses on assessing intolerance without residuals: checking for vomiting, regurgitation, abdominal distension and the patient's overall trend. Residual checks would remain available when a nurse or physician has a specific clinical concern, documented with the reason. The dietitian would review calorie delivery daily for the first month, which is already part of her role.
What Staff Will Hear, and From Whom
The nurses on my unit have checked residuals for years, and many believe the check protects their patients. Telling them the evidence says otherwise will not be enough. The education session will be led jointly by a staff nurse and the unit's intensivist, and it will begin with the concern, aspiration, rather than with the trial. It will show the tube study, because most nurses have seen two tubes give different numbers and will recognize the problem, and it will be candid that the newest trial was inconclusive.
Nurses will also be told what they keep: the authority to check a residual when they are worried, with the reason written down. A change that removes a nurse's judgment tends to be quietly undone on night shift. One that asks nurses to use judgment instead of a timer has a better chance of lasting.
A Check That Could Fail
The change comes with an audit designed so that it could show the change was wrong. Over a three-month baseline and the three months that follow the change, the unit will record, for every ventilated adult on gastric feeding, the percentage of prescribed calories delivered over the first seven days, episodes of vomiting or regurgitation, and pneumonia diagnosed by the infection prevention team using its usual surveillance definition. The before-and-after design cannot prove cause, since other things may change between the two periods, and the report will say so.
The stopping rule is written in advance. If the proportion of patients with vomiting or regurgitation in the first month after the change is more than double the baseline rate, or if two or more aspiration events are reported in a month, the unit will return to residual checks at the 500 mL threshold for all patients while the cases are reviewed. If calorie delivery does not improve by at least ten percentage points over baseline after three months, the unit will ask why before claiming success. Either result would be reported to staff, whichever way it goes.
References
Abukari, A. S., & Acheampong, A. K. (2021). Feeding the critically ill child in intensive care units: A descriptive qualitative study in two tertiary hospitals in Ghana. BMC Pediatrics, 21(1), Article 395. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-02854-2
McClave, S. A., Taylor, B. E., Martindale, R. G., Warren, M. M., Johnson, D. R., Braunschweig, C., McCarthy, M. S., Davanos, E., Rice, T. W., Cresci, G. A., Gervasio, J. M., Sacks, G. S., Roberts, P. R., & Compher, C. (2016). Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 40(2), 159-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607115621863
Metheny, N. A., Stewart, J., Nuetzel, G., Oliver, D., & Clouse, R. E. (2005). Effect of feeding-tube properties on residual volume measurements in tube-fed patients. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 29(3), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607105029003192
Reignier, J., Mercier, E., Le Gouge, A., Boulain, T., Desachy, A., Bellec, F., Clavel, M., Frat, J.-P., Plantefeve, G., Quenot, J.-P., & Lascarrou, J.-B. (2013). Effect of not monitoring residual gastric volume on risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults receiving mechanical ventilation and early enteral feeding: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 309(3), 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.196377
Zhang, H., Chen, Y., Li, F., He, C., Li, X., Wang, Y., Fan, J., Wang, J., Xia, Y., Guo, N., & Yu, K. (2026). Efficacy and tolerability of non-routine gastric residual volume monitoring in mechanically ventilated adults receiving early enteral nutrition: A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Nursing in Critical Care, 31(3), Article e70486. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.70486
The Chamberlain NR 505 Week 8 instructions
The final NR 505 proposal has you recommend an evidence-based practice change. The checklist generally covers the question, a synthesis of evidence by design, the recommendation, limitations, implementation, communication with staff, evaluation and APA. Restate your question in its final wording. Name each source by its design and what it can and cannot show. Size the recommendation to the strongest evidence, and handle excluded groups separately. State gaps rather than burying them. Describe the approvals and education the change requires. Plan what staff will hear, from whom and what they keep. Build an audit that could show the change was wrong, with a stopping rule.
How this NR 505 Week 8 example is built
The question section restates the Week 2 question and explains the narrower recommendation. Table 1 lists each source with its design and limits, noting that only randomized trials support claims about changing the routine. The claim section limits the recommendation to supine patients on early gastric feeding. The prone section adopts the guideline's suggestion not to hold feeds below 500 mL where residuals are still measured. The gaps section names prone patients, the frequency question raised by Zhang and colleagues and another gap. The implementation section requires a policy revision approved by the medical director and nutrition committee. The staff section keeps nurses' authority to check when worried. The audit compares three months before and after with a stopping rule.
NR 505 Week 8 rubric: what full points look like
Evidence-based proposal rubrics in NR 505 typically weigh a clear question, synthesis of evidence by design, a recommendation sized to the evidence, acknowledgment of gaps, implementation, communication and evaluation, with APA. Sizing the recommendation is the decisive row, and the paper earns it by limiting the claim to the population the trial studied. Synthesis is credited because each source is named by what its design can show. Gaps score for being stated plainly. Implementation earns points through named approvals. Communication is credited for keeping nurses' authority to check. Evaluation scores because the audit could show the change was wrong. Five references support the proposal. Keeping nurses' authority to check when worried also lowers resistance.
NR 505 Week 8 help from the desk
A recommendation the cited studies were never designed to support costs the most, usually as a change built on descriptive studies. Another loss is a recommendation broader than the population studied. Students also hide gaps, skip how staff will hear about the change or plan an evaluation that can only confirm success. One or two strong trials can carry a proposal if their limits are respected. You can recommend against a change if the evidence supports that. The setting matters most in implementation. Send your evidence and an NR 505 proposal can size the recommendation to what the studies can show. Write the stopping rule before the change starts, not after a bad week.
Get a NR 505 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 8 instructions with whatever outline your section published, plus the studies you have already appraised if you have them, and a custom NR 505 evidence-based practice proposal is written to that material and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free and it is built on your question, not a substitute.
More NR 505 papers and MSN samples
- NR 505 Week 1: Evidence Behind a Routine Post
- NR 505 Week 2: PICOT Question Write-Up Example
- NR 505 Week 3: Research Design Comparison Paper
- NR 505 Week 4: Qualitative Study Appraisal Paper
- NR 505 Week 5: Noninferiority Trial Appraisal Paper
- NR 505 Week 6: Measurement and Sampling Write-Up
- NR 505 Week 7: Stepped-Wedge Trial Ethics Analysis
- NR 506 Week 8: Policy Synthesis Paper
- NR 504 Week 8: Leadership Role Synthesis Paper
- NR 506NP Week 8: Advocacy Case Paper
- NR 503 Week 8: Board of Health Epidemiologic Report
NR 505 Week 8 questions, answered
How many studies does the proposal need?
Your section sets a number and it varies widely, so the posted figure governs. What matters more is the mix. A recommendation about effect needs work designed to detect effect, and a recommendation about whether people will accept the change needs studies that asked them. Six papers all of one design can leave half the argument unsupported.
Can I recommend against a change?
Yes, and it is often the stronger paper. A proposal concluding that the evidence does not yet support altering anything, with the reason given in methodological terms and the study that would settle it named, demonstrates exactly the judgment the course is built around. Check the wording of your prompt, since a few sections require a recommendation for something.
How much of the proposal is about the setting?
Less than most drafts give it. Naming where the recommendation would apply is necessary, because evidence gathered on one population does not automatically reach another, but the paragraphs that earn marks here are about the match between the studies and that population rather than about who would need to be persuaded.
Where can I find a free NR 505 Week 8 sample paper?
This page shows the complete Week 8 proposal to stop four-hourly residual checks for supine ventilated adults, with the evidence table, the claim, the prone exception, gaps, implementation, the audit and five references.
What stopping rule does the NR 505 Week 8 proposal set?
If vomiting or regurgitation in the first month is more than double the baseline rate, or two or more aspiration events occur in a month, the unit returns to residual checks at a 500 mL threshold for everyone while the cases are reviewed.