| Course | NR 516 Basic Research and Evidence-based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Evidence table with synthesis |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 516 Week 7
Evidence Table: Four Studies Read Against One Question About Flushing Idle Peripheral Catheters Less Often, Each Cell Traceable to a Section of the Paper It Came From
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 516: Basic Research and Evidence-based Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evidence Table: Four Studies Read Against One Question About Flushing Idle Peripheral Catheters Less Often, Each Cell Traceable to a Section of the Paper It Came From
The Question and How the Studies Were Chosen
The table is organized around the Week 2 question: whether moving adults on a medical-surgical floor from eight-hourly (or more frequent) saline flushes of unused peripheral lines to a single daily flush alters how often those lines fail. The four studies are those retrieved and read during this course. Three are randomized trials that compared flushing intervals; they were the only trials of peripheral flushing frequency among the eleven randomized trials returned by the final PubMed search. The fourth, an interview study of emergency clinicians, is included because it bears on whether any change could be put into practice.
The header row was set before the studies were entered. Each cell records only what the article reports, and the section of the article where it can be checked is named in brackets.
The Table
Table 1
Evidence Table for Flushing Frequency of Idle Peripheral Intravenous Catheters
| Study | Design | Sample and setting | Comparison | Outcome measured | Main finding | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keogh et al. (2016) | Open-label pilot factorial trial, two volumes crossed with two intervals [methods] | 160 adults, medical and surgical wards, one hospital, Brisbane, Australia; recruited over four months [methods] | 3 mL vs 10 mL; every 6 h vs every 24 h, 0.9% saline [methods] | Catheter failure: occlusion, infiltration, dislodgement or phlebitis, per 1,000 h [methods] | Failure 5.06 per 1,000 h at 24 h vs 7.34 at 6 h, p = 0.05; not significant in regression [results] | Powered 14% for frequency, calculated afterward; one site [discussion] |
| Schreiber et al. (2015) | Noninferiority randomized controlled trial, two parallel groups [abstract, methods] | 400 children aged 1 to 17 randomized, 397 analyzed [results] | Saline flush every 12 h vs every 24 h [methods] | Catheter patency; catheter-related complications [methods] | Occlusion 7.6% at 12 h vs 4.5% at 24 h; 24 h noninferior; complications 12.1% vs 9.5% [results] | Children only; 12 h, not 8 h, as the comparison [methods] |
| Kleidon et al. (2020) | Pilot factorial trial with random allocation, pediatric [methods] | 55 children enrolled of 919 screened, April to November 2015 [results] | 3 mL vs 10 mL; every 6 h vs every 24 h [methods] | Feasibility; catheter failure, composite and by type [methods] | No difference in failure by frequency, hazard ratio 0.91; more failure with 3 mL, hazard ratio 2.90 [results] | Feasibility criteria not met; small sample [results, conclusion] |
| Xu et al. (2024) | Qualitative descriptive study, semistructured interviews [methods] | 25 nurses and doctors, two emergency departments, Queensland, 2023 [methods, results] | Not applicable | Barriers to and facilitators of adherence to a catheter care standard [methods] | Barriers: stressful setting, limited training, no feedback on catheter outcomes [results] | Emergency setting; no patients interviewed [discussion] |
Note. Bracketed labels name the section of each article where the entry can be verified. h = hours.
What the Table Supports
Read across the three trials, the evidence points one way without proving it. None found that flushing less often increased catheter failure. The adult pilot found a lower failure rate with 24-hour flushing than with 6-hour flushing, though the difference was not significant in the regression analysis and the trial had little power to detect one (Keogh et al., 2016). The pediatric noninferiority trial showed that once-daily flushing kept catheters open at least as well as twice-daily flushing (Schreiber et al., 2015). The second pediatric pilot found no difference between frequencies but did find more failure with the smaller flush volume (Kleidon et al., 2020).
The table also shows what the evidence does not support. No trial tested eight hours, the interval my unit uses; the trials bracket it. Adults appear in just one of the trials, a pilot. Volume findings were inconsistent: the adult pilot pointed toward smaller volumes failing less often, while the pediatric pilot found the opposite. For my unit, that means the evidence supports considering a longer interval but does not support changing the 10 mL volume at the same time.
What the Qualitative Row Adds
The fourth row answers a different question, and it was kept in the table on purpose. The trials say what could safely change. The qualitative study says what may prevent change even when the evidence is clear. Emergency clinicians described time pressure, limited training and, above all, no word back about how their catheters fared (Xu et al., 2024). A unit that moves from eight-hourly to once-daily flushing will need to show staff how catheters fare afterward, or the old habit will return under pressure.
Where the Studies Differ From My Unit
Before the table can inform a decision, each study's setting has to be set against the unit where the decision would be made. My unit cares for adults, most of them over 60, on a medical-surgical floor in a community hospital in the United States, with catheters that usually stay in for two to four days. The adult pilot is closest: adult medical and surgical wards, an average dwell of 3.1 days, and a comparison that brackets our interval. The two pediatric trials differ in population, since children's veins and catheters are smaller and their catheters are handled differently, but they are the only evidence on once-daily flushing that was designed to test safety rather than feasibility. The qualitative study is furthest from us in setting, an emergency department, yet closest in the behavior it describes: nurses deciding how to handle catheters under time pressure. Each row therefore carries a different kind of weight, and the table's bracketed sources let a reader decide how much weight to give each one.
Honest Limits of the Table
The table is small because the evidence is small. It rests on one database search, and a search of CINAHL and trial registries could add studies. Its cells were filled by one reader; a second reader checking each bracketed section would strengthen it. And it does not grade the studies with a formal appraisal tool, which the final paper for this course will do for the three trials. A reader who wants to check any entry can go to the named section of the article and find it.
A second reader is the cheapest improvement available, and a colleague on the practice council has agreed to check every bracketed entry before the table is shared.
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
Xu, H., Bowdery, J., To, Y., Duff, J., Griffin, B., Ullman, A. J., Rickard, C. M., & Plummer, K. (2024). Peripheral intravenous catheter clinical care standard adherence in emergency departments: A qualitative study underpinned by the behaviour change wheel. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 81(11), 7659-7673. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16409
Reading the NR 516 Week 7 instructions
The Week 7 assignment asks you to organize the studies you found into an evidence table and summarize what they show. Prompts usually specify columns, such as citation, design, sample and setting, intervention, outcomes, findings, limitations and level of evidence, and ask for a short synthesis afterward. The table should include only studies you have read, and each entry should be accurate enough that someone could verify it. Keep the columns consistent across studies. Many sections ask for a narrative paragraph explaining patterns, gaps and the overall strength of the evidence. Check the required columns, the number of studies and whether a template must be used.
Inside the NR 516 Week 7 example
The example states the question and how the four studies were chosen, then explains the rule for filling cells. The table gives design, sample, comparison, outcome, main finding and limits for each study, with bracketed section labels. The synthesis explains that none of the trials found harm from less frequent flushing, that the pediatric noninferiority trial is the strongest on safety, and that volume findings conflict. A section explains why the qualitative study was kept in the table. Another sets each study against the writer's unit. The final section admits the table rests on one database and one reader and notes that a colleague will check each entry.
Reading the NR 516 Week 7 grading rubric
The rubric for the evidence table usually rewards accurate and complete entries, consistent columns, appropriate studies and a synthesis that identifies patterns and gaps. Graders check a few entries against the articles, so accuracy matters more than volume. A synthesis that simply restates each row earns less than one that compares studies and notes disagreements. Many rubrics include level of evidence and relevance to the practice question. Tables should follow APA 7 format with a number, title and note. Clear writing and correct citations complete the grade, and a note on the table's limits often earns credit under critical thinking. Entries that name the page or section they came from make the grader's spot check quick and tend to be rewarded for accuracy.
NR 516 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points
The most common mistake is filling cells from abstracts alone, which leads to errors graders can spot quickly. Read each article and note where every entry came from. Another is including studies that do not address the question just to lengthen the table. Students also write a synthesis that repeats the table row by row; compare instead. Watch for conflicting findings and say so rather than averaging them away. Keep units and time frames exact. Finally, include the table's limits, such as a single database search, so readers know how complete it is. An honest small table is worth more than a large one built from abstracts.
Get a NR 516 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the table template your classroom supplies, plus the citations you have collected so far, and a finished grid comes back filled to your columns, with the paragraph underneath describing the search. Written to your own instructions, returned inside 24-48h, and the first one is free.
More NR 516 papers and MSN samples
- NR 516 Week 1: Discussion Post on a Ward Habit
- NR 516 Week 2: Searchable Question Exercise
- NR 516 Week 3: Article Summary of a Flushing Trial
- NR 516 Week 4: Design Identification Exercise
- NR 516 Week 5: Research Ethics Case on Consent
- NR 516 Week 6: Qualitative Study Review
- NR 516 Week 8: Practice Question Paper
- NR 513 Week 7: Precepting Reflection on a Sign-Off
- NR 510F Week 7: Professional Portfolio Piece
- NR 510 Week 7: Contract Review Memo
- NR 508 Week 7: Medication Teaching Plan
NR 516 Week 7 questions, answered
Do the columns have to be the ones in the template?
Where a template is supplied, keep its columns and its order, since it is usually what the grader reads across. Extra columns of your own can sit at the right hand end if the instructions allow additions. What causes trouble is renaming a supplied column, because the person marking is checking that a particular thing appears in a particular place.
The paper I found is a review of other studies. Does it get a line?
Check the prompt, because sections differ on this. Where reviews are allowed, the line has to say so plainly in the design cell, and the participants cell describes the studies included rather than people. Where the assignment asks for primary studies, a review is better used to find them: its reference list will point at the papers you actually want on the grid.
Does a narrative paragraph go with the table?
A short one is usual, and at this stage it describes rather than argues. Say how many studies are on the grid, where they were found, what years they cover and what kinds of design appear. Resist writing the paragraph that says what all of it means together, because that assignment arrives in a later course with its own requirements.
Where can I find a free NR 516 Week 7 sample paper?
The four-study flushing table above, with its synthesis, is a full NR 516 Week 7 sample and costs nothing to read. Share the studies you found and an evidence table for your own question can be prepared.
Should a qualitative study go in an NR 516 evidence table?
It can, if it helps answer the practice question or its implementation. The sample includes one because it explains what could block a change, while the trials address whether the change is safe.