What is the nurses understanding of pain assessment and management in the post anesthesia phase of nursing care to improve surgical patients’ outcomes?
1. using a systematic approach to search the literature on a topic
2. write a narrative review with themes to identify a gap in the literatures
3. The 1st year review can draw on both quant and qual studies for the review.
Section 1:
Components and Presentation of the Assignment
This assignment comprises four front pages, three main sections and two supporting sections.
The four ‘front pages’ include a title page, a statement of declaration, an abstract and a table of contents.
The three main sections include an introduction, the literature review, and a research plan/review protocol.
The two supporting sections include references and appendices.
The contents/description of each is outlined below.
1. Submission sheet
2. Title page
3. Declaration
4. Abstract
5. Table of contents
6. Introduction/Background to the literature review
7. Literature Review
a. Main body
– Themes (should be 3 or more.)
b. Conclusion
8. Research plan/systematic review protocol (see section 3)
9. Reference List
10. Appendices
The total word count for this assignment is 5,000 (+10%) words, excluding title page, table of contents, reference list and appendices. Suggested word allocation for the abstract and each chapter, and the weighting per section is outlined below. Suggested words Weighting Abstract 200 words Chapter 1: Introduction 300 words 80%
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4,000 words
Chapter 3: Research Plan/Systematic Review protocol 500 words 20%
Abstract
The abstract consists of no more than one A4 page and should be presented using single line spacing. The abstract usually communicates the essential components of the literature review and research/review plan. It prepares the reader for the content of the literature review and attempts to highlight the importance of the enquiry to the reader. It should not contain abbreviations or references.
Section 2: Literature Review
Types of Literature to include
• Research studies are central to a literature review and should be critiqued appropriately
• The subject may also appear in the literature as debate or description, and you must make an informed judgment about what to include.
• A review should reflect and comment upon the type of literature available.
How to Use Data Sources
• Search using key databases (a search of 3-5 key databases is sufficient for this assignment); these might likely include CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ASSIA, The Cochrane Library or the Web of Science.
• Document your search strategy as follows
• Concisely summarise your search strategy in the section of your review that describes the search strategy (i.e. databases searched, keywords used, years searched, other sources, etc.).
Concisely summarise the results of your search strategy (i.e. number of papers retrieved and included, type of literature (e.g. study design), countries of origin of studies, etc.).
• The detailed results of your search strategy (i.e., number of ‘hits’ using the various keywords, and their combinations using AND/OR operands) can be completed for your own record of the searches.
• Use a PRISMA flow chart to present your search findings (Appendix 3)
Main Body of Literature Review
• Divide your topic into the major themes of relevance to the topic under review. The themes should reflect the recurring ideas that have emerged from the literature. Outline briefly, what you are going to focus on in each theme, ensuring you only focus on content related to your research question or aim.
• You can then choose to present your literature review in one of two ways:
1. Present the findings and discussion together, under the relevant theme heading. Please note the findings from one paper may fit across a few themes.
OR 2. Present the findings under the relevant theme heading and discuss the findings in a separate section.
• Critically review the relevant literature.
• Provide a summary of the main points at the end of each theme/section.
• Anecdotal evidence and ‘sweeping statements’ unsupported by evidence, should not be use
It is NOT appropriate to:
• State your own opinions on the subject (unless you have evidence to support such claims).
• State what you think nurses/midwives/practitioners should do (unless you have evidence to support such claims).
• Provide long descriptive accounts of your subject with no reference to research studies.
• Provide numerous definitions, signs/symptoms, treatment, and complications of a particular condition without focusing on research studies to provide evidence or to support the primary purpose of the literature review.
• Provide numerous quotations from included papers/studies.
• Discuss research studies in isolation from each other.
In the Literature Review, it is appropriate to:
• Focus on the literature in detail to support the themes.
• Link different research studies to support your point (i.e., compare different studies’ findings). The following are two examples of how this may be achieved:
Further evidence to support such claims is provided by Blogg’s (2018) study, which claims that… OR These findings are consistent with research carried out by Bloggs (2018).
• Critique individual research studies. This can be achieved by either using a recognized quality appraisal tool (see online lecture on literature appraisal) or by considering the following aspects of the studies: o Was the type of study (i.e., quantitative/qualitative) and design (i.e., survey, experimental, etc.) appropriate for answering the research question?
o Was ethical approval needed? If yes, did the authors provide details of approval in their report? o Number of participants/subjects; was it sufficient to the type of study and design?
Type of sample (i.e., random/convenience); was it appropriate to study design?
o Aim of the study; was this reflective of the title and research question?
o Were the methods used to collect data appropriate (i.e., questionnaire, interview, observation, etc.) and validated measurement scales used.
o Findings; were these reflective of/appropriate to answering the research question or address the research aim?
o Strengths/limitations of the study (i.e. have the authors clearly addressed any strengths or limitations of their study in their report? If not, can you identify any that should have received attention? It is important to consider all these areas when reviewing research studies. You do not have to stick rigidly to the sequencing of these points or address all of them for every study, but to demonstrate critiquing skills you should consider most of these aspects somewhere in your review. The main body of the review must be followed by a conclusion.
Conclusions from the literature reviewed
• You may commence by stating; ‘The purpose of this literature review was to….
’ • Then provide a summary of all the different items that were discussed
• Remember you are recapping on the main points of your review, so you do not introduce any new research/themes/findings. However, a consensus or disagreement between writers may be referred to.
• Indicate how or if your findings can be taken into practice areas.
• Try to draw comments and findings together and make statements about what you have found. • You should detail recommendations and/or implications for further research and for practice. Consider how this can be taken forward as a research study or a systematic review.
• Present a research/systematic review question or aims and objectives.
Section 3: Research Plan or Systematic Review Protocol
Use the template below to present a 500-word plan of your proposal/protocol to address the research/systematic review question or aim and objectives. For each of the eight points identified on the template, write a few lines outlining what your plan is for this aspect of the proposed study. There is no need to provide justification at this stage, as you will be doing this in your dissertation in year 2.
Template for 500-word plan of proposed methodology For Systematic Review
Systematic Review Question/Aim and Objectives Inclusion criteria (using PICOS or PEOS acronyms) Outcome measures Search Criteria Study selection Quality assessment Data Extraction Data Synthesis Management issues (timescale, resources, budget)
Systematic Review Question/Aim and Objective
Inclusion criteria (using PICOS or PEOS acronyms)
Outcome measures
Search Criteria
Study selection
Quality assessment
Data Extraction
Data Synthesis
Management issues (timescale, resources, budget)
section 4
Referencing
HARVARD REFERENCING
MINIMUM OF 60 REF FOR 5000 WORD ASSIGNMENTS
USE an article once in a theme.
The School of Nursing and Midwifery system of referencing must be adhered to as per the 2020/21 guidelines.
section 5. Examples of Literature Reviews
summary of identified studies
EXAMAPLE:
YEAR/STUDY DESIGN METHOD/ SAMPLE/KEY FINDINGS
BELOW is the DRAFT ABSTRACT I HAD SUBMITTED. KINDLY REVIEW AND CHANGE AS NEEDED.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
The post -anesthesia care unit (PACU) is the first place that patients are taken following their procedure, and it is here that the first recovery from their anesthetic and surgery begins. Accordingly, a considerable amount of the PACU nurses time is occupied with an assessment and management of pain in the post-surgical patient. Despite the use of standardized tools such as pain rating scales and medication procedures, the assessment and management of post-operative pain differs dramatically from one patient to another in the PACU. Taking this into perspective, the author tried to understand how PACU nurses interpret pain assessment and care of the post-surgical patient.
AIM
To understand the processes PACU nurses utilize when assessing pain and implementing subsequent pain management in patients following surgery.
