• 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.

Reference:

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

KEYWORDS

CLABSI; mucosal barrier injury;

chlorh

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