Evidence is key for a successful evidence-based implementation project such as the Direct Practice Improve (DPI) project. The different levels of evidence in research are based on the methodology of the study (Dang & Dearhold, 2018). For instance, level one includes randomized-controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses while level two includes cohort studies. Such levels are important as they determine the grade and strength of the study (Dang & Dearhold, 2018). In addition to the levels of evidence, research can be divided into primary and secondary research. Primary research refers to studies that include active participation by the research, while secondary research are summaries or synthesis of data. Research articles that fail to meet the required level of evidence cannot be used as the lack of strength may lead to issues and ultimately lead to poor outcomes. The DNP project that I would like to focus on revolves around the skill of inserting intravenous (IV) catheter skills and the confidence levels of nurses in an acute medical-surgical unit. The first article by Ramer et al. (2016) qualifies as a primary research article because it utilized a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of using intravenous assistive devices (such as the VeinViewer) when inserting IV catheters. In the study, 53 patients were randomly assigned to either the standard methods group or the VeinViewer group. After each IV insertion, nurses filled out a questionnaire that evaluated their confidence level and competency assessment (Ramer et al., 2016). The second article by Marsh et al. (2018) also qualifies as a primary research article because a randomized control trial was performed to determine which insertion method was more effective in eliminating complications (such as phlebitis and infiltration) while increasing dwell time, insertion attempts, and insertion success (March et al., 2018).

References:

Dang, D., & Dearholt, S.L. (2018). Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice : Model & guidelines (3rd ed). Sigma Theta Tau International Marsh, N., Webster, J., Larsen, E., Genzel, J., Cooke, M., Mihala, G., Cadigan, S., & Rickard, C. (2018). Expert versus generalist inserters for peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: a pilot randomised controlled trial. Trials, 19(1), 1–10. https://doiorg.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2946-3 Ramer, L., Hunt, P., Ortega, E., Knowlton, J., Briggs, R., & Hirokawa, S. (2016). Effect of intravenous (IV) assistive device (VeinViewer) on IV access attempts, procedural time, and patient and nurse satisfaction. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 33(4), 273–281.