| Course | NR 516 Basic Research and Evidence-based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two replies |
| Length | About 550 words |
| Format | Discussion post with APA 7 citations |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 516 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Initial Post
We Flush Every Idle IV Every Eight Hours. PubMed Found Three Trials That Tested Anything Like It, and None Tested Eight Hours
The Practice
On my 32-bed medical-surgical unit, every peripheral intravenous catheter that is not running an infusion gets a 10 mL saline flush every eight hours, at 0600, 1400 and 2200. The flush is built into the medication administration record as a scheduled task, so it happens whether or not the catheter has been used for medication in between. I have done it thousands of times. Last week I realized I had never asked where the number eight came from.
The practice has an object I can name: a scheduled 10 mL flush of 0.9% sodium chloride into an idle peripheral catheter at a fixed interval. That is narrow enough to search.
What the Search Returned
I searched PubMed on September 30, 2026. The plain phrase "peripheral intravenous catheter flush frequency" returned 31 records. When I used the subject heading for peripheral catheterization with the word flush and the words frequency, interval or hourly in the title or abstract, and limited the results to randomized controlled trials, the count dropped to 11. Reading the 11 titles, only three were trials of flushing peripheral catheters at different intervals; the rest were about arterial lines, central catheters, heparin, ultrasound-guided insertion and, in one case, dogs.
The three were a pilot trial in adults comparing flushes every 6 hours with every 24 hours (Keogh et al., 2016), a trial in children comparing every 12 hours with every 24 hours (Schreiber et al., 2015), and a pilot trial in children with the same 6 and 24 hour comparison (Kleidon et al., 2020). None tested eight hours. The adult pilot found no significant difference in catheter failure between the two frequencies, and the pediatric trial found once-daily flushing was not worse than twice daily for keeping catheters open.
What Has Been Standing In for a Study
If the evidence does not supply eight hours, something else does. My guess, which I will test, is that our interval came from matching the flush to our medication pass times so nurses would not need a separate trip, and that it has been kept because it is in the order set. That is a workflow reason, not an evidence reason. It may still be a reasonable choice, but I can no longer describe it as evidence-based.
Question for the group: Pick one routine on your unit that happens at a fixed interval. Do you know whether the interval was chosen from a study, a manufacturer's instruction or a medication pass time?
Reply to Aisha
You chose turning patients every two hours and said the evidence is strong. I searched that phrase too, and much of what came back tested other intervals or combined turning with special mattresses. Did your search find a trial of two hours specifically, or trials that support repositioning at some interval? The difference matters for your practice question.
Reply to Daniel
Your example of a daily chlorhexidine bath is useful because the practice has a clear object. One thing to add to your search: the setting. Many trials were done in intensive care units, and your unit is a step-down. A trial's setting is part of what it tested.
References
Keogh, S., Flynn, J., Marsh, N., Mihala, G., Davies, K., & Rickard, C. (2016). Varied flushing frequency and volume to prevent peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A pilot, factorial randomised controlled trial in adult medical-surgical hospital patients. Trials, 17(1), Article 348. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1470-6
Kleidon, T. M., Keogh, S., Flynn, J., Schults, J., Mihala, G., & Rickard, C. M. (2020). Flushing of peripheral intravenous catheters: A pilot, factorial, randomised controlled trial of high versus low frequency and volume in paediatrics. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 56(1), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14482
Schreiber, S., Zanchi, C., Ronfani, L., Delise, A., Corbelli, A., Bortoluzzi, R., Taddio, A., & Barbi, E. (2015). Normal saline flushes performed once daily maintain peripheral intravenous catheter patency: A randomised controlled trial. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100(7), 700-703. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307478
What the NR 516 Week 1 assignment asks for
The Week 1 discussion asks you to choose a nursing practice you perform and to consider whether it is supported by research. Most prompts ask you to describe the practice, search for evidence, report what you found and reflect on why the practice continues. Replies to classmates are expected. The key is precision. A practice described as fall prevention or infection control is too broad to search. Name the practice at the level of an object and an interval, such as a flush of a set volume at a set time, so that a search can find or fail to find it. Report the actual search, including the database and date. Check the posting deadlines and word range for your section.
Inside the NR 516 Week 1 example
The sample post names the practice with its volume, solution and three scheduled times, and says plainly that the writer had never asked where the interval came from. It then reports the real search: a plain phrase that returned 31 records, a subject-heading search limited to randomized trials that returned 11, and the three trials among them that tested flushing frequency. It notes what those trials compared and what they found, and that none tested eight hours. A short section offers a hypothesis about the workflow reason behind the routine. The replies ask one classmate whether the evidence tests their exact interval and remind another that setting is part of what a trial tested.
NR 516 Week 1 rubric: what full points look like
Chamberlain discussion rubrics for NR 516 generally weight the initial post most heavily: a clearly described practice, evidence of a real search, and thoughtful analysis of what the search found. A criterion on scholarly support asks for at least one peer-reviewed source in APA 7, and replies earn credit only when they add something, such as a question about the classmate's search or a new consideration. Writing mechanics and timeliness usually carry the remaining points. A post that asserts a practice is evidence-based without showing a search, or that reports a search without reading its results, usually loses much of the analysis credit.
Common NR 516 Week 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common loss is choosing a practice too broad to search, which leads to a vague post. Another is claiming a practice is or is not evidence-based without saying what was searched, where and when. Students also report a count and stop, without reading the titles to see how many results actually address the question. Do not overstate what a few trials show; say what they compared. In replies, avoid praise alone. Ask about the interval, population or setting of the classmate's evidence, since those details decide whether it applies. Finally, if you guess at why a practice continues, label it as a guess to be checked, as the sample does.
Get a NR 516 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the discussion prompt from your classroom, along with the practice you have in mind if you already have one, and a finished Week 1 post comes back written to it, with the search reported the way your section wants it. The first one is free and it arrives inside 24-48h.
More NR 516 papers and MSN samples
- NR 516 Week 2: Searchable Question Exercise
- NR 516 Week 3: Article Summary
- NR 516 Week 4: Design Identification Exercise
- NR 516 Week 5: Research Ethics Case
- NR 516 Week 6: Qualitative Study Review
- NR 516 Week 7: Evidence Table
- NR 516 Week 8: Practice Question Paper
- NR 513 Week 1: Discussion Post on Credential Duties
- NR 510F Week 1: Discussion Post
- NR 510 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NR 508 Week 1: Discussion Post
NR 516 Week 1 questions, answered
Do I have to run a real search before writing the post?
In most classrooms yes, at least a quick one, because the post is asking you to report an absence rather than assert it. Two or three minutes in the library database gives you a name, a set of words and a number, and those three things are what turn an opinion about missing research into something a classmate can check or contradict.
What if the practice I picked turns out to be well studied?
That is a usable post too, and often a better one. Report the count, name the two or three papers nearest the practice, and say what your unit does instead of what they describe. The gap between a studied practice and a habit carried on regardless is the same subject from the other side, and nothing about the assignment breaks.
Is a manufacturer's instruction sheet a source or not?
It is a source, and naming it as one is part of the point. It is not a study, and the post should not let it stand in as one. Say who produced it, what it asserts about the practice, and what interest the producer has in the answer. Doing that in a sentence usually earns more than a vague appeal to the literature.
Where can I find a free NR 516 Week 1 sample paper?
The eight-hour flushing post above is a complete NR 516 Week 1 sample with both replies, free to read. If you picked a different habit, such as a turning schedule or a bath routine, request a post built on that one.
What practice should I choose for the NR 516 Week 1 discussion?
Choose something you do often at a fixed interval or in a fixed way, so it can be searched precisely. The sample uses a scheduled saline flush because the volume, solution and timing are all specific.