- You will select either a quantitative or a qualitative nursing research article (attached below).
- The study’s main components should be summarized.
- A critique also contains comments about the positive and negative aspects of the study and the report.
- The critique should be written as concisely as possible, 3 pages, typewritten, and double-spaced.
- It should address all parts of the report equally, with strengths and weaknesses outlined where appropriate.
- Where possible, include suggestions for improvement.
- Use the research critique rubric provided to complete this.
Jusino-Leon, G. N., Matheson, L., & Forsythe, L. (2019). Chlorhexidine Gluconate Baths: Supporting daily use to reduce central line–associated bloodstream infections affecting immunocompromised patients. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 23(2), E32–E38. https://doi.org/10.1188/19.CJON.E32-E38
E32 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CJON.ONS.ORG
B Chlorhexidine Gluconate Baths Supporting daily use to reduce central line–associated bloodstream infections affecting immunocompromised patients
Gladys N. Jusino-Leon, DNP, MSN, CMSRN, Linda Matheson, BSN, MS, PhD, and Lydia Forsythe, PhD, MA, MSN, CNOR, RN
BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS (BSIs) ARE AMONG THE LEADING CAUSES of death in healthcare facilities (Alkilany, 2016). These infections are associated with surgeries and devices used to deliver treatments, such as central venous catheters (CVCs) and ventilators. The use of CVCs has increased, with about 300 million catheters being used in the United States; more than 5 million of those are CVCs (Kornbau, Lee, Hughes, & Firstenberg, 2015). The use of implanted ports; peripherally inserted central catheters; and tunneled, cuffed CVCs to obtain vascular access is common in oncology units. These remain in place for days to several months. The familiarity with them can make healthcare providers and patients overlook infection preventive measures; this can put patients at risk for central line–associated BSIs (CLABSIs). CLABSIs are hospital-acquired infections with a mortality rate of 12%–25% (Sandoval, 2015). A BSI is considered a CLABSI when a patient develops a laboratory-confirmed infection, with signs and symp- toms of infection more than 48 hours after the insertion of the central line (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019).
Bacteria in oncology care settings include methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). These organisms are associated with poor hand hygiene by patients, family, or healthcare providers, or inadequate care of the CVC (CDC, 2016). Infections by these two organisms are preventable and counted under the CLABSI rate for healthcare facilities (Chen, Li, Li, Wu, & Zhang, 2013). Patients with cancer also are susceptible to other organisms because of mucosal barrier injury (MBI). MBIs are the result of chemotherapy promoting the translo- cation of oral and gastrointestinal flora into the bloodstream, increasing a patient’s susceptibility to hospital-acquired infections (Metzger et al., 2015). When an intestinal organism is identified by a blood culture obtained from blood drawn from a CVC, and the patient has been neutropenic within the infection window period (three days before and three days after blood cul- ture was obtained), it is considered an MBI and nonpreventable (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013).
The Joint Commission (2013) created a CLABSI toolkit called the CVC Maintenance Bundles that integrated evidence-based interventions and was required to be used nationwide in healthcare facilities (see Table 1). A CVC
CLABSI; mucosal barrier injury;
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER
BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)
has a broad-spectrum antimicrobial property
that has proven to be effective in prolonging skin
antisepsis and decreasing pathogens often seen in
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to reduce the incidence
of central line–associated bloodstream infections
in a hematology-oncology unit through the staff’s
continued adherence to the institution’s protocol
for CHG baths with wipes, and to identify barriers
and the degree to which they interfered with
optimal use of the CHG wipes.
METHODS: The project focused on supporting
staff and nurses by providing education and train-
ing on current practices to staff and patients, and
identifying barriers. Direct observation and chart
audits were the approach chosen to implement
FINDINGS: For the project study period, the unit
had three nonpreventable bloodstream infections
and zero preventable bloodstream infections.
APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING E33CJON.ONS.ORG
maintenance bundle prevents infection of the catheter insertion site by promoting the implementation of aseptic techniques for ongoing catheter site care in hospitalized patients (CDC, 2019). MRSA is a type of bacteria that usually presents as a skin infection and is resistant to many antibiotics; this skin infection becomes life-threatening in the hospital setting (CDC, 2019). The use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), which has a broad-spectrum antimicrobial property, has proven to be effective in decreasing and eradicating pathogens often seen in oncology units, such as MRSA and VRE (Chen et al., 2013).
A healthcare facility in the southeastern region of the United States, Emory University Hospital, was particularly concerned about the development of CLABSI events in the hematology-oncology unit. In 2011, a CVC maintenance bundle was successfully implemented on the unit, but CLABSI events continued to develop. For example, in September 2015, the CLABSI rate was about 8 events per 1,000 central line days. In December 2015, the CLABSI rate decreased to 2 events per
1,000 central line days, but by February 2016, it increased to 4 events. Whether these rates were a combination of CLABSI and MBI events is unclear. These numbers were particularly con- cerning because CLABSIs among immunosuppressed patients are life-threatening and associated with increased healthcare costs (Nelson, Angelovic, Nelson, Gleed, & Drews, 2015). In 2016, the facility added to the CVC maintenance bundle the use of CHG baths for patients with cancer on admission and daily. This entailed using CHG wipes, with the expectation that it would reduce BSIs in the unit. At the end of the fourth quarter of 2016, the unit had a CLABSI incidence rate of 5.28 per 1,000 central line days. The national goal for CLABSI events established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality in 2013 was 1 event per 1,000 central line days.
Many healthcare facilities struggle to reach that goal. The staff had many theories about what was causing the develop- ment of CLABSI events in the unit. A quality improvement project was developed to identify and close the gap that
CVC MAINTENANCE BUNDLES
BUNDLE COMPONENT RATIONALE AND EXPECTATION INTERVENTION
Administration set replacement
Primary and secondary set are replaced no more frequently than 96 hours and at least every 7 days, unless contamination occurs.
ɔ When starting IV fluids, use aseptic technique; apply dated label. ɔ Change central parenteral nutrition lines every 24 hours. ɔ IV sets used intermittently should be discarded immediately after being used. ɔ Set is discarded immediately after transfusion of blood products.
Catheter access Aseptic technique used for all access to the line
ɔ Use sterile blood collection technique. ɔ “Scrub the hub” before accessing catheter.
Catheter injection ports Alcohol scrub of infusion hubs for 15 seconds before each use
ɔ Open lumens and hubs covered with alcohol-impregnated caps. ɔ Caps are changed no more than 72 hours per 7 days.
Catheter replacement Daily review of central line necessity
ɔ Review number of recent maximum-temperature episodes and recent blood cultures done and results.
ɔ Inspect catheter site. ɔ Notify team during rounds. ɔ Document ongoing need for the CVC.
Dressing Change clear dressing every 7 days. ɔ Use sterile kit. ɔ Follow institution’s dressing change protocol. ɔ Apply chlorhexidine gluconate–impregnated sponge at the insertion site.
Hand hygiene Hand hygiene at all times before manipulation of the CVC and IV system
ɔ Reminders during huddle ɔ Reminders posted throughout the unit and patients’ rooms
Healthcare personnel training All staff members are required to receive hands-on training followed by a competency evaluation.
ɔ New hired personnel receive training during residency program and orientation. ɔ Annual competency evaluation
Daily inspection of the insertion site for signs of possible infection: S (smell), P (pain), A (appearance), D (drainage)
ɔ Offer site care if wet, soiled, or not changed for more than 7 days. ɔ Document. ɔ Notify team.
CVC—central venous catheter Note. From “Preventing Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections: Useful Tools, an International Perspective,”by Joint Commission, 2013. Retrieved from https://www.jointcommission .org/topics/clabsi_toolkit.aspx. Copyright 2013 by Joint Commission. Adapted with permission.
E34 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CJON.ONS.ORG
CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE BATHS
promoted the continued development of CLABSI events on the hematology-oncology unit. This project addressed the following question: “In immunosuppressed patients with central lines on an acute hematology-oncology unit, will increasing adherence to CHG baths bring the CLABSI rate from 5.28 per 1,000 central line days to 1 per 1,000 central line days within a 10-week period?”
Studies show that the delivery of safe, quality care at the bed- side can be hindered by a work environment that lacks key work processes (Moustaka & Constantinidis, 2010). A healthcare environment that fosters interprofessional work and commu- nication, teamwork, adequate supplies and equipment, and the reduction of unnecessary tasks promotes effective delivery of care (Lavoie-Tremblay et al., 2014). A stressful environment may result in poor decision making, lack of concentration, apathy, decreased motivation, and anxiety, impairing job per- formance and creating uncharacteristic errors (Moustaka & Constantinidis, 2010).
Methods Approval of the procedures and methods for the project was given by the healthcare facility and Capella University’s institutional review boards. The project used the engage, educate, execute, and evaluate sequence (see Figure 1). The objective of the proj- ect was shared first with the unit practice counsel, a committee designed to help improve patient care and staff satisfaction on the unit. Meeting with this group helped with understanding the staff ’s initial perceptions of the project and identifying possible barriers that could hinder its implementation. These meetings revealed the need to increase staff ’s education, orientation, and training on the institution’s protocol. Education, orientation, and training on the institution’s protocol for the use of CHG wipes were offered to staff members. The staff members were expected to explain the CHG bath with wipes during their initial assess- ment of patients on admission and every day throughout their hospitalization.
Education The first two weeks of the project included establishing a baseline about procedures and performing the procedures. This baseline period included observation and evaluation of staff providing CHG baths with wipes, review of staff members’ documentation, education, review of the institution’s protocol, and checkoffs on the institution’s protocol for CHG bath with wipes (see Figure 2). Initially, the plan was to provide patients and family members with a complete summary of possible complications that resulted from the development of CLABSI events. Leadership concern about possible legal liability changed that plan to informing patients and family members only of the possibility of extended length of stay. An educational board was designed and posted on the unit to increase patient awareness of the practice. Direct observation of the implementation of the practice was used to
ɔ Seeking and maintaining staff engagement using motivational inter-
ɔ Initial group or one-to-one meetings with staff to review the institution’s
protocol for CHG baths with wipes
ɔ These meetings revealed staff’s need for education, orientation, and training.
ɔ Education, orientation, and training on CHG baths with wipes offered to
patient care technicians; patient and family education to be focused on
how CHG baths with wipes affect length of stay
ɔ First round of direct observation of staff’s performance of CHG baths with
wipes to validate competency was conducted
ɔ Auditing of documentation found documentation to be incomplete.
ɔ Patients’ refusal of CHG baths with wipes with no indication of staff’s
intervention was identified.
ɔ Education board was created.
ɔ The need to create a group to conduct regular surveillance was determined.
ɔ Leadership expressed concern about the amount of information shared
with patients and family.
ɔ CLABSI control team created
ɔ CHG champions identified
ɔ Patient education modified to share only the extension of length of stay as
the result of a CLABSI
ɔ Second round of documentation audit occurred.
ɔ Staff accountability for adherence to appropriate documentation and
patient education increased.
ɔ Staff began to identify ineligible patients.
ɔ First report from hospital’s BSI committee showed increased adherence to
institution’s protocol for CHG baths with wipes was needed.
ɔ CHG champion started to audit documentation and offered feedback to
ɔ Increased awareness of staff with the practice resulted in increased
ɔ Staff adopting the practice
ɔ Second report from the hospital’s BSI committee received 0 preventable
CLABSIs, 0 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus events, and only
three nonpreventable mucosal barrier injuries.
ɔ Interventions by the CLABSI control team and CHG champion became
more frequent. Patients’ education (on admission and throughout the
hospitalization) was more appropriate and complete. Documentation that
reflected patients’ refusal and staff’s interventions, ineligible patients, and
BSI—bloodstream infection; CHG—chlorhexidine gluconate; CLABSI—central line– associated bloodstream infection
APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING E35CJON.ONS.ORG
validate staff members’ skill competency and adherence to the institution’s standard practice.
The first formal round of direct observation to evaluate how the CHG baths with wipes were being offered took place from April 10 to April 14. Audit of staff members’ documentation followed direct observation. Timely feedback was essential to promote self-awareness and a change in practice. Every month, the hospi- tal’s BSI committee shared a report on the unit’s CLABSI rate. If a patient developed a CLABSI, the chart was audited for any inter- ruption that may have occurred on standard practice throughout the hospitalization. An important part of the education offered to nursing staff members was the integration of the definition of MBI, helping them differentiate between a CLABSI and an MBI. The audits on documentation helped identify patients who continually refused the CHG baths with wipes. The phrase “CHG bath with wipes” was changed to “CHG treatment,” helping patients, family, and staff acknowledge the importance of this practice.
Execution The institution uses electronic health records to document baths, with a free-text area to include any additional information. Documentation of the CHG bath with wipes was either absent or incomplete, with the reason for refusal not explained or not fol- lowed up by the night nurse or patient care technician. Changes to
the plan included identification of strategies to address patients’ refusal (see Table 2). Once documentation improved, ineligible patients were better identified. Documentation helped identify reasons for patients’ refusal and follow-up interventions.
To facilitate adherence to the practice, a CLABSI control team was created and CHG champions were recruited. Team members offered daily reminders on the standard practice and highlighted the importance of detailed documentation. The central line dressing–change team oversaw nursing adherence to the CVC maintenance bundle. The discharge class coordinator integrated information on the CHG bath with wipes to facilitate patients’ adherence to the practice on their next admission. Surveillance of the institution’s protocol on admission and throughout the patient’s hospitalization by the CHG champions increased.
Data Analysis Increased staff accountability helped support the use of daily CHG baths with wipes. This was obtained through increasing feedback offered to the staff and using the motivational interview model when documentation was incomplete. The motivational interview included the following questions:
ɐ What are the steps to follow when offering the CHG bath? ɐ Why do you think this healthcare facility’s guidelines follow a
specific order when offering the CHG baths? ɐ How did you remember each step? ɐ If a step was missed, how sure are you about that? ɐ How will you explain the CHG baths to the patient and family?
Overall, the multiple components of the scholarly project helped identify and address barriers, adjust the implementation of the interventions as needed, and assess their effectiveness.
Results from the project were evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative analysis determined staff perceptions, experiences, attitudes, and comfort with the standard practices (Bricki & Green, 2017). The quantitative anal- ysis measured the number of patients who were consistently receiving the CHG bath with wipes. This number was compared with the monthly hospital’s BSI committee report for the unit to see if the intervention was affecting and reducing the CLABSI rate. The number of patients refusing the CHG treatment and the number of times staff were adherent to documentation were used to assess the barriers identified. Descriptive statistics were used for adherence and refusal scores, and both were calculated based on the number of eligible patients on the unit every day. The unit’s CLABSI rate, reported by the hospital’s BSI com- mittee on the 15th of each month, was compared to the number of patients who received and refused the treatment.
CHG BATHS CHECKLIST
Wash patient’s face with terrycloth washcloth, water, and CHG-compatible soap.
Use CHG wipes for the rest of the body:
Abdomen and back
Right leg (thigh to toes)
Left leg (thigh to toes)
Buttocks, groin, and perianal area (Do not use internally, between labia, or on tip of penis.)
Wait 30 minutes to apply lotions compatible with CHG.
Time and date CHG treatment in electronic documentation.
Assess condition of the skin daily.
CHG—chlorhexidine gluconate Note. From “Universal ICU Decolonization: An Enhanced Protocol,” by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013. Retrieved from https://www.ahrq.gov/ professionals/systems/hospital/universal_icu_decolonization/index.html. Copyright 2013 by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Adapted with permission.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
ɔ Integrate evidence-based practice into the nursing staff’s daily routine
to promote quality improvement of standard practices. ɔ Have a staff that is well informed, trained, and empowered to
perform their responsibilities. ɔ Use detailed documentation to identify other areas that need to be
addressed by the nursing staff.
E36 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CJON.ONS.ORG
CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE BATHS
Results The project lasted about three months. The total number of beds in the unit is 24. Two days were chosen every week to review the number of CHG baths with wipes that were offered to eligible patients. Adherence to detailed documentation of the CHG baths with wipes by patient care technicians and nurses improved from 94% in April to a consistent 100% in June. The number of patients receiving the treatment improved at the beginning of the second month, but some patients still refused it. During the first month, the hospital’s BSI committee reported two preventable CLABSIs, one nonpreventable MBI, and zero MRSA events, with a CLABSI rate of 6.07 per 1,000 central line days. The two preventable CLABSIs were tracked back to a patient who refused to receive the CHG baths with wipes 16 days of his 32 days in the hospi- tal, reflecting 50% refusal throughout his hospitalization stay. The other CLABSI was tracked back to a patient who refused the CHG baths with wipes 7 days toward the end of her 34 days in the hospital, reflecting 20% refusal throughout her hospitaliza- tion stay. This patient showed signs of infection in the central line insertion site, but the hematology-oncology service did not remove the central line until the completion of the treatment while administering IV antibiotics. Whether this was requested by the patient is unknown.
Following the implementation of the project, the report obtained from the BSI hospital committee for the second and third month showed the development of zero CLABSI events on
the unit, zero MRSA events, and only three MBI events. The final CLABSI rate for the unit reported by the BSI hospital committee was 5.86 per 1,000 central line days, which reflects the three non- preventable MBIs developed in the third month.
Discussion Patients’ refusal to receive the CHG baths with wipes was identified as a barrier to complete adherence of the unit to the institution’s protocol. Occasional patient refusal and inconsis- tencies in documentation were two major barriers to complete unit adherence to the protocol for CHG baths with wipes.
BARRIERS TO CHG BATHS
BARRIER REASON INTERVENTION RECOMMENDATION
Patients’ refusal CHG leaves a sticky film on the body, making patients uncomfortable.
ɔ Increased education ɔ Patients were given the choice
to do the CHG bath with wipes at night.
ɔ Night staff to follow up
Staff to continue education using lab- oratory results as a tool to explain to patients the need for the intervention
Ineligible patients Allergic to CHG or skin not intact ɔ Patients were not counted under
the number of patients to receive the CHG bath with wipes.
Leadership requested that education be limited only to the impact of CLABSI on patients’ length of stay.
Concerned about legal liability related to the amount of information shared with patients and family regarding the effect of CLABSI on the hospitalization
ɔ Education was limited to the impact of CLABSI on patients’ length of stay.
ɔ Patients’ laboratory results were used twice by the project leader to explain the need for the interven- tion. As a result of this intervention, patients agreed to receive the CHG bath with wipes.
The use of laboratory results as a tool to explain to patients the need for the intervention should be considered in a future project.
The project time frame was limited to only 10 weeks.
Doctor of Nursing Practice project ɔ CLABSI control team created, CHG
champion established for continu- ation of the practice
Identify more CHG champions, promote the intervention, educate patients more frequently, and extend the project to 6 months to a year.
CHG—chlorhexidine gluconate; CLABSI—central line–associated bloodstream infection
“Increased staff accountability helped support the use of daily chlorhexidine gluconate baths with wipes.”
APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING E37CJON.ONS.ORG
Project results identified a gap in the staff members’ and patients’ understanding of the rationale behind the institu- tion’s protocol and the purpose of the CHG baths with wipes. Educating the staff on proper documentation helped identify barriers. Differentiating between CLABSI and MBI helped staff members understand the importance of their interventions. In private conversation with patient care technicians after project completion, they expressed feeling more confident when edu- cating patients about CHG baths with wipes on admission and throughout their hospitalization. Patients and family members also indicated better understanding of the protocol and were better informed and more willing to receive the CHG baths with wipes.
The findings in this project are congruent with or supportive of previous studies conducted to verify how effective the use of CHG baths with wipes was in reducing CLABSI events in other hospital areas besides the intensive care unit (Whited & Lowe, 2013). A study conducted by Hines et al. (2015) showed patient refusal and lack of staff time as major barriers to daily CHG bathing. Offering the CHG baths with wipes at night helped increase patients’ adherence to the practice.
Although an improvement in the quality metric for CLABSI rates in this unit was evident, more than 10 weeks should be allowed to explore options that also could help reduce MBI incidence.
Limitations The CHG wipes left a sticky film on the patients, making them uncomfortable and more inclined to refuse the CHG baths with wipes. Concern of the director of the hematology-oncology unit about a complete disclosure of possible CLABSI compli- cations limited the information offered to patients and their family members. The information the first author prepared to educate patients and their family members had to be changed, and new venues had to be found. Offering information regard- ing the patients’ immune system and how neutropenia increases their risk of developing a preventable CLABSI or nonpreventable MBI was a good option. The project had to be implemented in 10 weeks, making time constriction the second limiting factor; how- ever, in that short time, an improvement in the adherence to the institution’s protocol was evident.
Conclusion A decrease in CLABSI events is considered an indicator of quality nursing care (Montalvo, 2007). Evidence-based prac- tices and preventive initiatives will be effective in reducing the incidence of CLABSIs if healthcare providers adhere to guide- lines and protocols established by their healthcare institution. Patient education is crucial to obtaining informed consent and having patients and their family members engaged in the institution’s protocol. The use of laboratory results to educate
immunocompromised patients is an effective tool to help them understand the importance of adhering to the institution’s protocol. This project could be extended to other areas in the hospital. Leadership, in this sense, opens the door to countless opportunities to be more effective in health promotion and dis- ease prevention.
Gladys N. Jusino-Leon, DNP, MSN, CMSRN, is a nurse clinician at the Gwinnett
Medical Center in Lawrenceville, GA; Linda Matheson, BSN, MS, PhD, is a faculty
member in the School of Nursing and Health Sciences at Capella University in
Minneapolis, MN; and Lydia Forsythe, PhD, MA, MSN, CNOR, RN, is the chief
executive officer of Londes Strategic Healthcare Consulting in Oklahoma City, OK.
Jusino-Leon can be reached at email@example.com, with
copy to CJONEditor@ons.org. (Submitted August 2018. Accepted November 27,
The authors gratefully acknowledge Katherine Renee Spinks, MSN, APRN,
ACNS-BC, AOCNS®, and Patricia Crabtree, BSN, MHA, RN, NE-BC, for their leader-
ship and guidance throughout the implementation of the project.
The authors take full responsibility for this content and did not receive honoraria
or disclose any relevant financial relationships. The article has been reviewed by
independent peer reviewers to ensure that it is objective and free from bias.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2013). Eliminating CLABSI: A national patient
safety imperative: Final report. Retrieved from https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality
Alkilany, M. (2016). CLABSI during neutropenia among oncology adults post chemotherapy.
Middle East Journal of Nursing, 10(3), 25–27.
Bricki, N., & Green, J. (2017). A guide to using qualitative research methodology. Retrieved
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). National and state healthcare-associated
infections progress report. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/progress-report/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Blood-stream infection event (central
line–associated blood-stream infection and non-central line associated blood-stream
infection). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/4psc_clabs
Chen, W., Li, S., Li, L., Wu, X., & Zhang, W. (2013). Effects of daily bathing with chlorhexidine and
acquired infection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-
resistant Enterococcus: A meta-analysis. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 5, 518–524. https://
Hines, A.G., Nuss, S., Rupp, M.E., Lyden, E., Tyner, K., & Hewlett, A. (2015). Chlorhexidine bathing
of hospitalized patients: Beliefs and practices of nurses and patient care technicians,
and potential barriers to compliance. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 36,
Joint Commission. (2013). Preventing central line–associated bloodstream infections: Useful
tools, an international perspective. Retrieved from https://www.jointcommission.org/
E38 CLINICAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING APRIL 2019, VOL. 23, NO. 2 CJON.ONS.ORG
CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE BATHS
EARN 0.5 CONTACT HOURS
ONS members can earn free CNE for reading this article and completing
an evaluation online. To do so, visit cjon.ons.org/cne to link to this article
and then access its evaluation link after logging in.
Certified nurses can claim no more than 0.5 total ILNA points for this pro-
gram. Up to 0.5 ILNA points may be applied to Symptom Management OR
Professional OR Oncologic Emergencies. See www.oncc.org for complete
details on certification.
Kornbau, C., Lee, K.C., Hughes, G.D., & Firstenberg, M.S. (2015). Central line complications.
International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science, 5, 170–178. https://doi.org/10
Lavoie-Tremblay, M., O’Conner, P., Harripaul, A., Biron, A., Ritchie, J., Lavigne, G.L., . . . Sourdif,
J. (2014). The effect of transforming care at the bedside initiative on healthcare teams’ work
environments. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Metzger, K.E., Rucker, Y., Callaghan, M., Churchill, M., Jovanovic, B.D., Zembower, T.R.,
& Bolon, M.K. (2015). The burden of mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed
bloodstream infection among hematology, oncology, and stem cell transplant patients.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 36, 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Montalvo, I. (2007). The National Database of Nursing Quality IndicatorsTM (NDNQI®).
Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 12(3), 2. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol12
Moustaka, E., & Constantinidis, T.C. (2010). Sources and effects of work-related stress in
nursing. Health Science Journal, 4(4), 210–216.
Nelson, R.E., Angelovic, A.W., Nelson, S.D., Gleed, J.R., & Drews, F.A. (2015). An economic
analysis of adherence engineering to improve use of best practices during central line
maintenance procedures. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 36, 550–556.
Sandoval, C.P. (2015). Three practice bundles to reduce CLABSIs. American Nurse Today, 10, 37–38.
Whited, A., & Lowe, J.M. (2013). Central line–associated bloodstream infection: Not just an
intensive care unit problem. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 17, 21–24.
Copyright of Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing is the property of Oncology Nursing Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Research Critic Rubric
NUR3165 – Nursing Research Page 1 of 2
CRITERIA OUTSTANDING ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE
TITLE OF THE ARTICLE, JOURNAL INFORMATION & COPY OF THE ARTICLE
10 points The title of the paper guides the reader to the topic of the critique. A copy of the article is provided.
5 points The title of the paper is ambiguous to the topic of the critique. A copy of the article is provided.
0 points The title does not represent the topic, copy of the article is not present.
SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE
10 points The article is clearly but succinctly summarized – only the key points of the article are touched upon. The article summary takes up no more than one third of the total assignment.
5 points The article is clearly summarized, but some sub points are addressed along with main points. The summary is not succinct. Often the summary takes up more than 1/3 of the total assignment.
0 points The article summary is unclear or overly detailed. Often well over half of the assignment is taken up by the summary.
ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLE
20 points Strengths and weaknesses that are central to the article are addressed. The discussion of strengths and weaknesses take up the majority of the assignment.
10 points Strengths and weaknesses that are peripheral to the article are addressed. The discussion of strengths and weaknesses take up the majority of the assignment.
5 points Strengths and weaknesses that are addressed peripherally, weakly or not at all. The discussion of strengths and weaknesses take up only a small part of the assignment.
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
20 points Student can correctly identify sections and explain how results and conclusions are accurate and justifiable. Student goes further by identifying similar research to compare and contrast the article.
10 points Student can correctly identify sections and explain how results and conclusions are accurate and justifiable.
5 points Not able to correctly identify sections or explain whether results and discussion are accurate and justifiable.
Research Critic Rubric
NUR3165 – Nursing Research Page 2 of 2
CRITERIA Outstanding Acceptable Unacceptable
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE ARTICLE
10 points Demonstrates thorough understanding of the article by listing all key findings and reflecting upon their implications.
5 points Demonstrates some understanding of the article by listing some of the key findings…but documentation is lacking in completeness.
0 points Demonstrates little understanding of the article with few or no key findings reported.
FOLLOWS APA FORMAT. USES INTEXT CITATION AND APPROPRIATE REFERENCES
10 points Follows APA format is followed throughout the paper, uses intext citation, and references.
5 points Follows APA format has intext citation but are incorrect.
0 points Does not follow APA format throughout activity. Does not have reference or use in-text citations.