Nursing response 2-Peer 2025

150 words and 1 reference (nursing journals). This is a response to peers Anxiety is an emotional and at times a physiological response which is a common experience among patients coping with any cancer diagnosis. Anxiety can range from normal reactions to extreme dysfunction. Anxiety also has tremendous influence over a patient’s decision-making capabilities, treatment adherence, as well as their quality of life and function (Smith, Cope, Sherner, & Walker, 2014). The following articles, where choses to evaluate the validity, reliability, and applicability as to the effectiveness of certain interventions in alleviating anxiety for those afflicted with cancer. The first article chosen Mei-Fen et al. (2015), utilized the highest level of research logistics level 1 or meta-analysis and systematic review. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for relieving anxiety and depression in people with any form of cancer. Inclusion criteria for the study involved adult participants diagnosed with cancer and receiving mindfulness-based therapeutic intervention and reported changes in anxiety and depression levels. Studies that did not evaluate anxiety or depression levels were not included. The final number of studies included totaled 7 with 888 participants: 469 intervention group and 419 control group (Mei-Fen et al., 2015). The meta-analysis results yielded statistically significant improvements in anxiety and depression levels post mindfulness-based therapy intervention compared to control. Inferred limitations to the study appeared to be lack of mindfulness-based therapeutic consistency, variation of cancers and relatively small number of studies to evaluate. However, this leaves room for future evaluation and scientific inquiry. Overall it can be concluded that this study proves there is an evidence base practicality in the adoption of mindfulness-based interventions for relieving anxiety and depression in people with any form of cancer. However, further studies should be conducted since the research limitations leave room for greater scientific augmentation. The second article chosen by Goerling, Foerg, Sander, Schramm, & Schlag (2011) explored the influence of psycho-oncologic intervention on the psychological condition of anxiety and depression patients regarding patients with cancer. Like the previous article it to actualized the strongest level for the hierarchy rating system level1utilizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For this study participants were categorized according to high or low risk and then randomly placed into either a psycho-oncologic support or control group. The sample was composed of 131 participants with all types of cancer represented and by the end of the study statistical findings showed a reduction of anxiety and depression in high-risk patients who had undergone psycho-oncologic intervention (Goerling, Foerg, Sander, Schramm, & Schlag, 2011). Some of the limitations incurred throughout this study was the fact that the time frame was short of only 12 months and only 49 of the total participants completed the full study. Therefore, it can be concluded that while psycho-oncologic intervention does support anxiety and depression reduction amongst cancer patients further research on a larger scale over a longer period is needed to observe its truest beneficial effects on patient care and wellbeing. Based on the statistical documentation both articles researched clearly implemented quantitative methodology. This is further evident by the fact that quantitative studies tend to produce knowledge about very precise topics, creating a need for multiple studies over multiple years before conclusive knowledge is yielded. The most common quantitative designs used in health care research are survey, needs assessment, experimental, quasi-experimental, methodologic, meta-analysis, and secondary analysis (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2014 p 439). Although the qualitative methodology was not applied within the context of these articles it is still a well-founded research tool. For example, qualitative research is a method of research designed for discovery rather than verification. It is used to explore little-known or ambiguous phenomena. Interviewing is the main technique used in qualitative methods to explore the meaning of certain experiences to individuals. This method is time consuming and costly and uses small samples; therefore, generalizations cannot be made from findings (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2014 p 476).

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

Peer Response 2025

The area of interest I selected is hand washing with soap and water more effective in Prevent Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections (CLABSI) in ICU at Memorial Hospital West than washing hands with hand sanitizer (Latif et al., 2015). The program track for my specialty is Family Nurse Practitioner. My chosen area of interest is indeed consistent with my selected program track since it equips me with clinical experiences and practical skills on how to deal with Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections. Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections is one of the widespread problems being recorded at the ICU and has resulted in deaths of many patients every year. Therefore, hand washing with soap and water will not only help curb these deaths, but also help reduce the billions of dollars currently spent on healthcare system in the United States (Anderson, 2015). This intervention will be administered to all ICU staff at the hospital. The unit’s staff members include licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, health unit coordinators, and nurse externs. I do not want or wish to alter my area of interest. I believe my area of interest is fundamental toward preventing infections in the ICU and enhancing the optimal safety of patients (Eggers et al., 2015). As a nurse practitioner, I would like to find out how hand washing with soap and water helps safeguard patients against contracting new-fangled infections. The area of interest is vital to the program specialty track. Washing hands with soap and water helps increase patient safety as well as avert Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections. As a Family Nurse Practitioner, I will passionately advocate hand washing using soap and water since such intervention makes the patients’ immune system less vulnerable and promotes patient safety (Anderson, 2015). The area of interest will also increase my competency as a nurse practitioner. APA One Reference From Peer reviewed nursing journal within the last five years 150 words one page

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

Nursing Theory Paper 2025

Must Be Plagiarism Free!!! Requirements (see attached for full instructions). Description of the Assignment This assignment focuses on the importance of nursing theory within the profession. Selecting one nursing theory (non-nursing theories are not allowed), the nursing theory will be presented by identifying the key concepts present within the theory. The selected nursing theory will then be applied to the following professional nursing practice area: · Nurse practitioner –A minimum of 4 (four) scholarly references within the last 5 years must be used. — Title page, running head, body of paper, and reference page must follow APA guidelines as found in the 6 th edition of the manual. This includes the use of headings for each section of the paper except for the introduction where no heading is used. — The paper (excluding the title page and reference page) should be at least 5, but no more than 7 pages. Points will be lost for not meeting these length requirements .

Nursing Assignment Help 2025

FOR SURAYA ONLY 2025

Research study Evidence of Aspiration Risk is the research study I have chosen to review. The goal of conducting any research experiments is to accurately test a hypothesis in an unbiased format and derive valid trustworthy results. The internal validity of a study is the proven relationship between the independent variable and the outcome of the study (Polit & Beck, 2017). If the findings of a study can be explained in a way other then it is being presented, the internal validity of the study is automatically weakened. Quasi-experimental studies have a higher risk of issues with internal validity than other research designs (Polit & Beck, 2017). Researchers must plan to prevent any possible ambiguity or threats to the internal validity of their study by using control mechanisms such as selection biases. Questioning the Internal Validity I read the “Methods” section of the aspiration risk-reduction study as instructed in this week’s discussion post instructions, and I immediately had questions. Before reading the entire study, my thoughts were: What was the age (or age range), gender, and comorbidities of all of the patients involved? Did they all have the same vent settings? How sedated were they? Was there a suctioning schedule followed for both groups? Was the same suction equipment used in all of the patients? What method was used to determine their target feeding goal? Were they all bolus fed through the feeding tube or around the clock fed? Did they all receive free water flushes? Were the feedings held based on residual? How often was residual checked? Did any of them have a diagnosis of upper GI bleed? Were they all on a peptic ulcer prevention drug? In which part of the lung was pneumonia found? Did they only consider the right upper lobe “aspiration pneumonia”? These are just to name a few of the questions that I had surrounding this study. After reading the entire study many of the questions I mentioned above were answered. However, I still found that some of the specific questions I had were not addressed. Had the researcher discussed some of the variables that could have impacted the outcome it would have strengthened the internal validity of the study.  Additionally, of the data described in this study does question the internal validity as both groups that were monitored and compared for aspiration were treated differently. The usual care group did not address guidelines regarding head of the bed elevation, nor did the nurses have formal training regarding insertion of small-bowel feeding tubes, and the gastric residual volumes were not regulated. Whereas the Aspiration Risk-Reduction Protocol (ARRP) group had guidelines to follow for all of the above (Metheny, Davis-Jackson, & Stewart, 2010).  Because this is an older study and I am very familiar with the CDC “VAP Bundle”, and it is fairly common knowledge that keeping the head of the bed up helps prevent pneumonia and aspiration. With all of the variables in this study, the external validity is questioned, meaning how can this research pinpoint what was most effective. With that said, despite my personal experience and additional questions, I feel that the findings do concur with current practice as it related to keeping the head of the bed up. However, have never seen feeding tubes placed in the small bowel below the pylorus. Failing to consider validity Statistical validity is the relationship between variables which can be simply described as the hypothesized cause and effect. Where construct validity is the inferences made from the specific settings, outcomes, or treatments, and external validity helps determine if the results of the study can be applied to various people, settings, and treatment (Polit & Beck, 2017). If any area of validity in a study is in question, that can potentially compromise the overall validity of the study, leaving the learner to question all aspects of the research. References Metheny, N., Davis-Jackson, J., & Stewart, B. (2010). Effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol. Nursing Research, 59(1), 18-25. doi:10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181c3ba05 Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Nursing Assignment Help 2025