| Course | NR 714 Application of Analytic Methods II |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Results presentation with speaker notes |
| Length | About 1,340 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Slides with speaker notes, APA 7 references |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 714 Week 8
Peripheral IV Failure Fell by About a Quarter After the Securement Bundle: Results and Recommendations for 4 North, in Ten Slides
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 714: Application of Analytic Methods II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Slide 1: Catheter Failure Fell About a Quarter After the Bundle
4 North, 36-bed adult medicine unit
Before, January to June 2026: 103.2 per 1,000 catheter-days
After: 78.1 per 1,000, September 2026 to March 2027
Rate ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87
Speaker notes: Good afternoon. The headline is on the slide so nobody has to wait for it. After we introduced the securement bundle, premature failure of peripheral IVs on 4 North fell from about 103 to about 78 per 1,000 catheter-days. The interval runs from 0.66 to 0.87, so the true fall is somewhere between about a third and about an eighth. In the next nine slides I will show whether the bundle reached patients, how sure we can be, what it cost and what I would like this committee to approve.
Slide 2: The Bundle Reached Patients Before It Could Work
Nurses' securement audit score: median 5.25 of 8 in August, 7.25 in October
Securement device on the hub: 19 of 112 catheters, then 94 of 112
Full bundle on 362 of 448 catheters audited, September to March, 81%
Weakest part: site score documented each shift
Speaker notes: Before any outcome, the question for this room is whether the change happened at all. It did. Twenty-five of 28 nurses improved on the bedside audit, the hub securement device went from rare to routine, and four in five audited catheters had all three parts. The weak spot is the once-a-shift site score, which moved least. I put this slide before the outcome so that, if the results had been flat, you would know whether to blame the bundle or its delivery.
Slide 3: Every Record Accounted For
1,388 catheter records extracted; 1,342 analyzed, 96% of expected
46 excluded with no insertion or arrival time; 31 were night arrivals from the emergency department
54 blank removal reasons: 39 resolved by two-nurse review, 15 still unknown
Post period moved two weeks for a late adhesive delivery, decided before any data were pulled
Speaker notes: Here is where every record went. The 46 we could not use were mostly emergency department catheters that arrived overnight, which are the ones that receive the bundle last, so their loss, if anything, flatters us slightly. The 15 unknown removals were handled exactly as the plan said, and the next slide shows the answer does not change if we count them all as failures. The one departure from the plan, a two-week delay, was decided before any post-period data existed.
Slide 4: The Fall Holds Under Both Treatments of Unknown Removals
| Analysis | Failures | Rate per 1,000 | Rate ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 437 | 103.2 | Reference |
| Post, unknowns as not failed | 318 | 78.1 | 0.76 (0.66 to 0.87) |
| Post, unknowns as failed | 333 | 81.8 | 0.79 (0.69 to 0.91) |
Speaker notes: This is the result with its uncertainty. In both rows the upper limit sits below 1.0, which is the test we set in August. Per catheter, failure fell from 30.9% to 23.7%, about seven percentage points. I would ask you to read the interval rather than the point estimate: at the cautious end the bundle cut failures by about 13%, at the optimistic end by about a third. Either end is a change we would want, and the size of the change, not a p-value, is what a decision should rest on (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012).
Slide 5: Dislodgement Fell Most, as Securement Predicts
Dislodgement: 22.7 to 12.8 per 1,000, rate ratio 0.56 (0.40 to 0.79)
Infiltration: 40.6 to 34.6, interval includes no change
Inserted on the unit: rate ratio 0.69 (0.57 to 0.84)
Arrived from the emergency department: 0.86 (0.69 to 1.06)
Speaker notes: Where the fall happened tells you as much as its size. Dislodgement, the failure a securement device is designed to stop, fell the most. Catheters we inserted ourselves, which got the bundle from the first minute, improved more than those arriving from the emergency department. The two subgroup intervals overlap, so I am describing a pattern, not claiming a proven difference. But a pattern that matches the mechanism is more convincing than an overall fall alone.
Slide 6: One Side Effect to Watch
Adhesive-related skin injuries: 2 before, 7 after
All 7 in patients over 80
Supply cost: $3.10 per catheter, $4,160 for six months
About 102 failures avoided, roughly $41 each in supplies
Speaker notes: There is a cost on the skin. Seven adhesive injuries is a small count, but it went the wrong way, and every one was in a patient over 80. The money is modest: about $41 of supplies for each failure avoided, before counting the nurse time and the second and third needle sticks that each failure brings. I am not hiding the skin injuries in a footnote, because the recommendation on slide 9 changes because of them.
Slide 7: What Else Changed in Those Months
New infusion pumps hospital-wide, October 2026
Vascular access team on day shift, November 2026
Nine new graduate nurses on 4 North, September 2026
5 North, no bundle, same pumps and team: rate ratio 0.96
Speaker notes: Measuring one unit against its own past cannot prove cause (Portela et al., 2015). Three other things changed while the bundle was running. Two of them, the pumps and the vascular access team, were hospital-wide, and 5 North, which had both but not the bundle, barely moved. That makes those two unlikely explanations for most of our fall. It does not rule out something specific to 4 North that we did not see.
Slide 8: What the Results Cannot Tell Us
Removals counted, not injuries to patients
One unit, one before-and-after comparison
Removal reasons chosen by the nurse who removed the catheter
Chart shift rule needs eight points; we have six
Speaker notes: These are the limits I would want to hear if I were sitting where you are. We counted removals, not harm. A trial of securement products across several hospitals did not find any single product clearly better than standard care (Rickard et al., 2018), which is why I give the credit to the routine as a whole, shift check included, and not to the adhesive. And our chart needs two more months before it formally confirms the shift. I expect it to, but I would rather say that than claim it early.
Slide 9: Recommendations, by Who Acts
Unit, starting now: keep the bundle; skin barrier film before adhesive for patients over 80
Unit educator, by May: refresher on the shift site score
Practice council: run the twelve-month evaluation plan, about four staff hours a month
Nursing quality committee, needs approval: trial on 5 North for six months, about $3,700 in supplies
Speaker notes: Each recommendation names who would have to act and whether it needs your approval. The first two the unit can do tomorrow. The barrier film responds directly to the skin injuries. The third is the evaluation plan you have already seen, owned by the practice council. Only the last needs this committee: a six-month trial on 5 North, which would also give us a second unit to test the result. I am not recommending hospital-wide adoption yet, because one unit's before-and-after result does not support it.
Slide 10: The Decision Requested Today
Approve a six-month trial of the securement bundle on 5 North
Supplies about $3,700; evaluation run by the existing plan
Result back to this committee in December 2027
Speaker notes: So the one thing I am asking you to decide today is the 5 North trial. If it shows a similar fall, the case for wider use will rest on two units rather than one. If it does not, we will have learned that before spending on the whole hospital. Thank you. Questions on the analysis, the costs or the limits are welcome.
References
Portela, M. C., Pronovost, P. J., Woodcock, T., Carter, P., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2015). How to study improvement interventions: A brief overview of possible study types. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(5), 325-336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003620
Rickard, C. M., Marsh, N., Webster, J., Runnegar, N., Larsen, E., McGrail, M. R., Fullerton, F., Bettington, E., Whitty, J. A., Choudhury, M. A., Tuffaha, H., Corley, A., McMillan, D. J., Fraser, J. F., Marshall, A. P., & Playford, E. G. (2018). Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. The Lancet, 392(10145), 419-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31380-1
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size, or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
NR 714 Week 8 instructions, in plain terms
Give every slide one point and write the finding into its title, so someone who reads only the titles still knows what happened rather than what was measured. Put each estimate and its interval on the same slide. Show process findings before outcome findings, because an audience told nothing improved needs to know first whether the change reached patients. Account briefly for your records and any departure from the plan. Give one slide to limits and keep it. Group recommendations by who would have to act and separate what the unit can start now from what needs approval or money. End on the decision you want from the room. Keep slide text short enough to read from the back, and put the explanation, numbers and citations into speaker notes that a reader could follow without you.
How this NR 714 Week 8 example is built
The sample's first slide states the fall, the two periods and the rate ratio with its interval, and its notes translate that into a range of about an eighth to a third. Slide 2 shows audit scores and bundle completion before any outcome. Slide 3 traces 1,388 records to 1,342 analyzed. Slide 4 is a small table with the primary and sensitivity results side by side. Slide 5 shows dislodgement falling most and the subgroup pattern, called suggestive rather than shown. Slide 6 puts skin injuries next to supply cost. Slides 7 and 8 name the other changes, the comparison unit and the limits. Slide 9 sorts four recommendations by who acts, and slide 10 asks for one approval with a cost and a report-back date.
Reading the NR 714 Week 8 grading rubric
The costliest slide is a recommendation that nothing earlier in the deck supports, often an expansion proposed from a difference whose interval includes no change. Next is the dense slide, a paragraph of the paper pasted in small type, which the room cannot read and which suggests no audience was considered. Points also go for titles that name a measure instead of what happened to it, for intervals dropped so every result looks equally firm and for process findings left out so a failure of delivery looks like a failure of the change. Limits removed because they look like weakness cost marks, as do empty speaker notes where they were required. Decks score well when they close on a specific decision the audience can take.
NR 714 Week 8 help from the desk
Turning a written results section into slides usually means cutting most of the words and moving them into notes. Send us your results, your audience and what you want them to decide, and we can help you write finding titles, put estimates and intervals on the same slide, order delivery before effect and sort recommendations by who acts. We can also help you draft speaker notes that carry the detail. The findings and the recommendations remain yours; the deck presents them for the room you will face.
Get a NR 714 Week 8 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment instructions, the rubric and whatever results you have, along with any slide count or narration requirement your section published. We build an original deck with speaker notes around your project and return it inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
More NR 714 papers and DNP samples
- NR 714 Week 1: Practice Question Post
- NR 714 Week 2: Outcome Measure Write-Up
- NR 714 Week 3: Epidemiologic Rates Write-Up
- NR 714 Week 4: Paired Analysis Write-Up
- NR 714 Week 5: Data Analysis Plan
- NR 714 Week 6: Data Analysis Results
- NR 714 Week 7: Evaluation Plan
- NR 709A Week 8: Project Closeout Memo
- NR 707A Week 8: Committee Progress Presentation
- NR 705A Week 8: Design Defense
- NR 702A Week 8: Readiness Memo
NR 714 Week 8 questions, answered
Does the presentation need a recording?
Many sections require narration or a video submission and some accept slides with notes. The example is built so it works either way: each slide holds a single point, and the notes underneath are written the way somebody would say them aloud rather than as bullet fragments. If your section specifies a length or a platform, tell us and the notes are paced to fit inside it.
How do I present a result that showed nothing?
Directly, and on its own slide. State the estimate and its interval, say what size of difference the numbers were ever capable of finding, and separate no effect from not enough data to tell. Clinical audiences respect that far more than a deck hunting through subgroups for something to report, and markers at this level are looking for exactly that restraint.
How many slides is right?
Follow the count your section publishes. Where none is given, a deck in the low teens carries a doctoral project comfortably, because the constraint that matters is one idea per slide rather than a total. Decks fail from crowding rather than from brevity, and anything that will not fit as a single point belongs in the notes or an appendix.
Where can I find a free NR 714 Week 8 sample paper?
The complete ten-slide results presentation with speaker notes for a peripheral IV securement bundle is shown on this page.
Why does the NR 714 Week 8 deck show process results before outcomes?
An audience needs to know the bundle actually reached patients before it can judge whether a change in failures says anything about the bundle.