Using the DPI manuscript attached, pls follow the PowerPoint template – use powerpoint notes ***must follow the PowerPoint template using the attached manuscript ***

Get perfect grades by consistently using www.essayjunction.com. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Using the DPI manuscript attached, pls follow the PowerPoint template – use powerpoint notes

***must follow the PowerPoint template using the attached manuscript ***

Using the DPI manuscript attached, pls follow the PowerPoint template – use powerpoint notes ***must follow the PowerPoint template using the attached manuscript ***
Implementing the ABCDE Bundle to Impact Length of Stay Submitted by Cathy Ann Jones A Direct Practice Improvement Project Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Nursing Practice Grand Canyon University Phoenix, Arizona May 31, 2023 © Cathy Ann Jones, 2023 All rights reserved. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY Implementing the ABCDE Bundle to Impact Length of Stay By Cathy Ann Jones has been approved xxxx xx, 2023 APPROVED: Christina Tedesco, DNP, DPI Project Chairperson Rosla Royal, DNP, ACNP, Project Mentor/Content Expert ACCEPTED AND SIGNED: ________________________________________ Lisa Smith, PhD, RN, CNE Dean and Professor, College of Nursing and Health Care Professions _________________________________________ Date Abstract Patients admitted to long-term acute care facilities may be at an increased risk for prolonged hospitalization related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). At the project site, no standardized process is in place to reduce the length of stay from the effects of PICS; therefore, an evidence-based solution was sought. This quality improvement project aims to determine if the translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE bundle would impact the length of stay among adult patients in a long-term acute care hospital. This quality improvement project aims to determine if implementing a translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE Bundle will impact the length of stay among adult patients. The project will be piloted in an urban Virginian acute care. Virginia Henderson’s needs theory and John Kotter’s eight-step change model will provide the scientific underpinnings for the project. Data will be collected from the electronic health record. Keywords: ABCDE Bundle, length of stay, long-term acute care hospital, John Kotter’s eight-step change model, Virginia Henderson’s nursing needs theory, patient outcomes, quality improvement project Dedication I want to thank God Almighty for everything He has done for me and dedicate my work to Him as my creator, solid pillar, and inspiration. Throughout this journey, He remained the basis of my strength, and it is only on His wings that I have been able to soar. I would also like to dedicate this undertaking to my family, who have been there for me every step of the way to offer guidance and encouragement. It would be illogical for me to ignore the vast number of patients who have suffered in one way or another due to care shortcomings. Thanks to them, I have understood their grievances, making it easy to develop a comprehensive quality improvement project. Acknowledgments I want to convey my profound gratitude to my mentor, who contributed to this motivational experience by providing me with support, direction, and expert understanding. In addition, I want to express my earnest appreciation to all my patients, physician colleagues, and nursing staff who participated in this quality improvement project. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my family for the support and encouragement they have provided me during the process of completing this terminal degree. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction to the Project 1 Background of the Project 2 Organizational Needs Assessment 4 SWOT Analysis 4 Strengths 5 Weaknesses 5 Opportunities 6 Threats 6 Problem Description 7 Definition of Terms 8 Summary 10 Chapter 2: Scientific Underpinnings 12 Literature Search Strategy 12 Synthesis of Literature 13 Evidence-Based Practice Question 22 Change Recommendation: Validation of the ABCDE Bundle 23 Theoretical Framework 24 Nursing Theory 25 Synthesis of Nursing Theory 28 Evidence-Based Change Model 30 Synthesis of Change Model 34 Integration of the Christian Worldview 37 Summary 38 Chapter 3: Project Design and Methodology 39 Purpose 40 Project Planning and Procedures 42 Interprofessional Collaboration 42 Project Management Plan 44 Feasibility 46 Setting and Sample Population 47 Setting 47 Population and Sample 48 Data Collection Procedures 49 Data Source 50 Variables 53 Data Integrity and Storage 54 Data Management 55 Potential Bias and Mitigation 55 Ethical Considerations 57 Summary 59 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results 60 Data Analysis Procedures 60 Descriptive Data of Sample Population 61 Results 63 Summary 65 Chapter 5: Implications in Practice and Conclusions 66 Summary of the Project 66 Major Findings 67 Interpretation of Findings 67 Strengths and Limitations 67 Implications 67 Theoretical Implications 68 Nursing Practice Implications 68 Recommendations 68 Recommendations for Future Projects and Researchers 68 Recommendations for Sustainability 69 Plan for Dissemination 69 Conclusion and Contributions to the Profession of Nursing Practice 70 References 71 Appendix A 91 SWOT Analysis 91 Appendix B 92 Literature Evaluation Table 92 Appendix C 141 Project Timeline 141 Appendix D 146 Plan for Educational Offering 146 Appendix E 148 Grand Canyon University Institutional Review Board Outcome Letter 148 Appendix F 149 Project Budget 149 Appendix G 151 ABCDE Bundle Checklist 151 Appendix H 152 Place the Permission to Use the ABCDE Bundle Checklist 152 List of Tables Table 1 A Sample Data Table Showing Correct Formatting 63 Table 2 t-Test for Equality of Emotional Intelligence Mean Scores by Gender 64 Table 3 Primary Quantitative Research – Intervention 92 Table 4 Additional Primary and Secondary Quantitative Research 109 Table 5 Theoretical Framework Aligning to DPI Project 136 List of Figures Figure 1 SWOT Analysis for Quality Improvement Project 91 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Project Some patients are unable to return home following an acute hospital stay. For these patients, there are three in-patient post-acute care (PAC) settings where they may receive skilled, rehabilitative care: in-patient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs), skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) (Kumar et al., 2022). Long-term acute care hospitals treat patients who require longer-term acute care due to the medical complexity or severity of their illness, and some facilities provide rehabilitation services (MedPAC, 2019). Patients transferred or directly admitted to an LTACH may suffer post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), which can result in deconditioning, muscle loss, pressure injury formation, decreased mobility, prolonged mechanical ventilation requirements, delirium, and hospital-acquired infections (Mira et al., 2017; Nordness et al., 2021). Other causes of PICS include short-term acute care readmissions or limited or no discharge destination, further prolonging their hospitalization and decreasing patient and family satisfaction (Hsieh et al., 2019). In 2013, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) initiated the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Liberation campaign from the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption (PADIS) Clinical Practice Guideline (Devlin et al., 2018; Pun et al., 2019). The guideline was updated in 2018 and included recommendations for reducing PICS and length of stay (LOS) in the ABCDE Bundle. This bundle is a valid, evidence-based protocol that can help guide treatment decisions (Balas et al., 2022). The ABCDE Bundle consists of six elements: Assessing pain using the Critical-Care Observation Tool (CPOT), Breathing or spontaneous awakening trials (SATs), Choice of sedation using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), Delirium screening using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU), and Early progressive mobility to decrease ICU–acquired muscle weakness (Chen et al., 2021; Collinsworth et al., 2021). The proposed project site lacks a standardized plan to manage PICS-related LOS. While increased LOS are multifactorial, implementing an evidence-based protocol may improve throughput efficiency at the project site and ensure patients receive evidence-based care. This chapter explores the project’s background, including the results of an organizational needs assessment and the identified problem. Background of the Project Patients diagnosed with PICS are often admitted to an LTACH for ongoing complex medical care needs related to sepsis, strokes, encephalopathy, heart failure, and acute respiratory failure resulting in tracheostomies needing ongoing mechanical ventilation support (Mira et al., 2017). Post-intensive care syndrome increases a patient’s risk of chronic pain, significantly impacting their quality of life and the ability to return to work and other daily activities (Nordness et al., 2021). This syndrome also increases patients’ LOS and readmissions to acute care. Globally, LOS is viewed as a measurement of hospital care (Kumar et al., 2018). Longer LOS equates to poorer care perception and increased patient dissatisfaction (Kumar et al., 2018). Length of stay among adult patients in long-term acute care can also impact patient outcomes. An increased LOS among adult patients in LTACHs has been correlated to reduced patient satisfaction, adverse effects, and lower reimbursement from government agencies and insurance companies. Long-term acute care hospitals are certified to provide long-term acute-level care to medically complex patients for 25 to 28 days (Grevelding et al., 2022). There has been an increased LOS among adult patients receiving long-term acute care at the clinical practice site. In the past 60 days, 75% of patients have had a LOS longer than 25 days due to delirium, cognitive and physical impairments, and psychiatric symptoms related to PICS. The ABCDE Bundle has been incorporated into many hospitals and healthcare organizations’ operations and protocols to improve patient outcomes and cut costs (Hsieh et al., 2019). However, it has not been incorporated into practice at the project site. Organizational Needs Assessment An organizational assessment is a process that reviews an organization’s strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of organizational assessment is to understand an organization’s current and potential future comprehensively. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis is one method for assessing needs. The research indicated that factors inherent in LTACHs might present problems when implementing quality improvement projects; therefore, a SWOT analysis was performed to identify and address possible issues early (Boehm et al., 2017). SWOT Analysis A SWOT analysis is a strategic tool for identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats within an organization’s business environment (Edwards et al., 2023). The strengths and weaknesses address the internal factors affecting quality improvement efforts, while opportunities and threats refer to external factors (Edwards et al., 2023). The following SWOT analysis helped pinpoint the organization’s strengths and struggles so that appropriate resources could be allocated for this quality improvement effort. Further, the SWOT analysis was instrumental in determining which elements of the organization’s processes needed strategically addressed improvement before and during the quality improvement project (Benzaghta et al., 2021). The discussion below summarizes the SWOT analysis results, and Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates the findings. Strengths According to Collinsworth et al. (2020), strengths are areas where an individual or organization performs well. They include positive characters and skills related to improvement and performance. The organization has been serving the community for more than 40 years, is well-respected, and can attract and retain high-quality staff despite shortages in healthcare, particularly in nursing. The ICU nursing and specialist teams function well together and are an asset to the organization. Hospital management is supportive and believes in continuous improvement based on evidence-based recommendations. Weaknesses Weaknesses are considered faults or areas where actions do not follow the organization’s aims. Weaknesses can be improved or worked on to meet organizational goals. One weakness is the current nursing staff shortages. New nurses will be hired throughout the project, making training time for quality improvement efforts challenging to fit into the schedule. The nursing shortage also results in double shifts at times, which further reduces opportunities for groups of nurses to find time for training. This weakness will be mitigated by offering multiple educational opportunities throughout the week to meet the needs of nurses. Opportunities Opportunities are areas that could be advanced and improved for organizational progress. They are also the circumstances that create a chance for organizational improvement. One opportunity of this project is that healthcare practitioners will receive preparation and training in evidence-based skills and competencies, which will enhance their growth and development to undertake quality improvement projects in the future (Balas et al., 2022). The second opportunity is that the facility’s leaders are dedicated to reducing LOS, increasing patient satisfaction, and obtaining reimbursement for quality care delivery. Leadership support throughout this project will demonstrate a caring culture and offer guidance and support. Threats Threats are the factors that may hinder the achievement of the project’s goals. One threat to implementing this project is poor communication between interdisciplinary team members. The ABCDE Bundle requires high coordination and communication between staff members. Effective clinician communication is critical in the hospital environment (Wu et al., 2012). Thus, communication between clinicians is critical in providing high-quality and safe patient care (Coiera, 2000). In a study conducted by Flynn et al. (2018), nurses reported improved communication between team members, including physicians and other allied healthcare providers. The ability to use smartphone technology improves efficiency in communication and facilitates immediate contact with colleagues (Flynn et al., 2018). To enhance communication, the facilities utilizes ASCOM phones. An ASCOM phone is the brand name of the smartphone used at the project site that promotes accessibility allowing for constant communication among staff members. To mitigate the communication threat, all staff members will be assigned an ASCOM phone at the beginning of their shift. A second threat is the use of contract nursing staff. Due to the recent pandemic, contract nurses are in total demand. While hiring contract nursing staff has been a good-faith effort for hospitals to ensure patient care is not interrupted, it is equally essential to ensure contract nursing staff have complete orientation and support to be successful in their workplace to carry out the mission of the organization. To mitigate this threat, it is essential to ensure all contract nurses receive proper orientation and training on the bundle elements, including the project’s goal. Upon onboarding, an indepth orientation will be specifically for contract nursing staff. Problem Description Length of stay is a significant issue in healthcare facilities since it increases complications associated with increased mechanical ventilation duration, skin ulcer formation, patient well-being, and cost of care (Hsieh et al., 2019). Data from management at the LTACH indicated that patients admitted to the long-term acute care units frequently require or are transferred to the facility’s high observation unit (HOU) upon admission. Many of these patients suffer respiratory, neurological, or cardiovascular events, warranting HOU monitoring. These patients frequently develop PICS, and 75% have required a LOS longer than the national average of 25 days. It is unknown if implementing a translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE Bundle will impact LOS among adult patients. Longer LOS increases a patient’s risk for hospital-acquired infections, which leads to patient dissatisfaction and reduced reimbursement from Medicare and insurers. A longer LOS also increases a patient’s risk of delayed recovery to their prehospital state and development of PICS. Despite recommendations from the Society of Critical Care Medicine concerning the use of the ABCDE Bundle, more data regarding its effectiveness outside of short-term acute hospitals is needed. Further, LTACHs need standardized, evidence-based protocols that impact patient LOS, which can then improve their long-term clinical outcomes. Definition of Terms The terms defined below outline the project’s key components. These terms are used operationally throughout the project. ABCDE Bundle The ABCDE Bundle is a valid, evidence-based protocol with five elements that can reduce ICU LOS. The first letter stands for Assess, Protect, and Manage Pain. The second letter stands for Breathing-spontaneous awaking trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT). The third letter identifies choices of analgesia and sedatives. The “D” stands for delirium, including assessment and management. The “E” stands for early movement and exercise. The Society of Critical Medicine has recently expanded the ABCDE Bundle to the ABCDEF Bundle, where the “F” stands for family (Collinsworth et al., 2021). However, only the first five elements will be implemented in this project. Delirium Delirium is a disturbance in attention and awareness that develops quickly. It represents an acute change from baseline attention and awareness and fluctuates in severity during the day (American Psychiatric Association, 2021). Intensive Care Unit (ICU) An intensive care unit is a multidisciplinary specialty unit committed to the comprehensive management of patients having or at risk of developing life-threatening organ dysfunction by using technology that supports failing organ systems to prevent further physiologic deterioration (Marshall et al., 2017). Length of Stay (LOS) Length of stay refers to a patient’s time in a hospital care unit from admission to discharge (Pun et al., 2019). This is the dependent variable for the project. Long-Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH) Long-term acute care hospitals are certified and equipped to provide long-term acute-level care to medically complex patients (Grevelding et al., 2022). The average LOS in an LTACH is 25 to 28 days. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) Post-intensive care syndrome is associated with delirium, cognitive and physical impairments, and psychiatric symptoms (Hsieh et al., 2019). Summary While the ABCDE Bundle has been widely utilized in ICUs and short-term acute care settings, it has not been used in LTACHs. Evidence showed that the ABCDE Bundle can reduce the length of mechanical ventilation, the incidence of delirium, healthcare costs, and LOS among adult patients needing acute care (Frade-Mera et al., 2022). The LOS among patients needing long-term acute care at the project site is increasing; therefore, an evidence-based, standardized protocol was sought. Due to the need to reduce LOS to improve reimbursement and patient satisfaction, the ABCDE Bundle was selected to address the problem at the project site. An organizational needs assessment demonstrated the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that might affect implementing the ABDCE Bundle at the LTACH. Chapter 2 describes the results of a literature review to develop this project. It also includes an overview of the nursing theory and change model to guide bundle implementation. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology that will be used to conduct the project, while Chapters 4 and 5 present the results and implications of the project for future practice, respectively. Chapter 2: Scientific Underpinnings This quality improvement project aims to impact the increasing LOS among patients needing long-term acute care at an LTACH. Long LOS in acute care facilities can lead to poor patient outcomes and reduced hospital reimbursement. Evidence showed that the ABCDE Bundle could effectively reduce LOS, among other conditions, in short-term acute care facilities. Still, more literature needs to focus on its use in long-term care. This chapter aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the ABCDE Bundle’s efficacy by reviewing scholarly literature concerning its impact on delirium, pain management, mechanical ventilation needs, and mobility. In addition, this chapter provides an overview of the theoretical foundations that will inform this project and how it will advance a Christian worldview. Literature Search Strategy The following databases were searched for relevant literature: PubMed, CINAHL, and ProQuest. The search terms used were ABCDE Bundle and intensive care unit. The inclusion criteria were articles published in English within the last five years that were available in full-text and peer-reviewed. Articles not available in full text, were not peer-reviewed, were published in a language other than English, and were published later than 2017 were excluded from consideration. A total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria and were used to support the intervention. Synthesis of Literature The ABCDE Bundle effectively reduces patient costs, especially for critical care patients. When implemented appropriately, the ABCDE Bundle can guide healthcare professionals in using delirium protocols, thus reducing healthcare costs (Loberg et al., 2022). The literature established that implementing the ABCDE Bundle is associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality and LOS among adult patients in long-term acute care (Barnes-Daly et al., 2017). Hsieh et al. (2019) evaluated the impact of the staged performance of complete versus virtual ABCDE Bundle on mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, ICU and hospital LOS, and cost among adult patients in long-term acute care. This study used a prospective cohort design and included 1,855 MV patients admitted to ICUs. The findings showed that early mobilization and coordination (EC) improved patients in the ICU by 30%. Implementation of the entire (B-AD-EC) vs. (B-AD) resulted in a decrease in MV duration. Implementing the ABCDE bundle reduced total ICU and hospital costs by 24.2% and 30.2%, respectively. The study’s primary limitation was the concentration on a single medical center, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. The recommendations included carrying the same research out in different facilities to observe the impacts of the ABCDE Bundle on patient costs. The ABCDE Bundle’s first element is pain assessment, which should be performed before administering pain relief medications (Frade-Mera et al., 2022). This element includes the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), which are considered the most reliable and valid behavioral pain scales for ICU patients who cannot communicate (Pun et al., 2019). The first element coincides with the second element, which is the breathing trials, spontaneous awakening trials (SAT) with spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) (Marra et al., 2017). The coordination of SBT and SAT has been associated with reduced use of sedatives, reduced time in ICU and MV, reduced instances of delirium, and lower hospital LOS (Hsieh et al., 2019). The third element is the coordination of the first and second elements. Bardwell et al. (2020) conducted a retrospective study at a teaching institution in a 34-bed ICU implementing the ABCDE Bundle to wean mechanical ventilation. A 2-tailed t-test was used to analyze the data. After ABCDE bundle implementation, mean ventilation time significantly decreased by nearly 50% (a difference of 1.98 days). A decrease in ventilation time was observed among all patients p=0.02. Bardwell et al.’s study highlights care coordination demonstrated that less sedation reduced the incidence of delirium, and improved pain management, thus decreasing LOS. The fourth element of the ABCDE Bundle is monitoring and managing delirium, which is significant components. Delirium is a risk factor for increased length of ICU stay, increased time on MV, increased hospital stays, long-term cognitive impairment, higher hospital costs, and higher mortality rates (Collinsworth et al., 2021). A study conducted by Trogrlić et al. (2019) conducted a retrospective cohort study. The study involved ICUs in one university hospital and five Neverland community hospitals. The size of the units varied between eight and 32 ICU beds. The study included a total of 3,930 patients. The results demonstrated that delirium screening increased from 35% to 93% after implementing the bundle’s delirium screening. The fifth element of the bundle outlines processes for early mobility. Early mobility is one intervention that can decrease delirium duration and improve other patient outcomes (Schallom et al., 2020). Chen et al. (2021) conducted a retrospective study in southern Taiwan. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase one was pre-ABCDE Bundle and phase two was post-ABCDE Bundle. The study demonstrated significant differences in hospital LOS among patients in phase two. Patients in phase two had a significantly lower ICU LOS ( 8.0 vs. 12.0) day p <0.05. The study highlighted the clinical outcome of shortened MV duration among those patients in phase two who received the ABCDE Bundle intervention was impacted by early mobilization. The ABCDE Bundle significantly reduces sepsis-related outcomes among critically ill patients (Hsieh et al., 2019). Mortality rates, especially in critical care units, are high; thus, properly implementing the ABCDE Bundle may decrease in-hospital mortality and LOS (Liu et al., 2021). Liu et al. (2021) recommended that secondary outcomes involve the implementation rates for each element of the ABCDEF Bundle. Further, the ABCDE bundle is related to effective care; therefore, managing a patient’s care using the ABCDE Bundle has an influential role in proper care delivery (Louzon et al., 2017). Proper bundle use has been shown to reduce mortality rates and LOS among adult patients in long-term acute care by establishing an effective and quality care delivery process (Liu et al., 2021). There are several significant steps to follow when implementing the ABCDE Bundle, according to Louzon et al. (2017). Phase 1 should involve a pilot program allowing ICU pharmacists to directly manage sedative therapy for MV patients in collaboration with an intensivist. In Phase 2, an interactive initiative that includes comprehensive pharmacist management and the development of a multispecialty inter-professional team to encourage the early mobilization of MV patients should be established (Louzon et al., 2017). Understanding how to manage patient care using bundle elements, including sedative therapy and early mobilization activities, will support the quality improvement project (Schallom et al., 2020). Healthcare professionals’ understanding of regulations and standards is essential to promoting quality care in critical care units. Evidence showed a correlation between implementing the ABCDE Bundle and improved adherence to delirium guidelines among healthcare professionals (Trogrlić et al., 2019). The official bundle implementation plans also include practitioner evaluation programs, thus promoting efficiency when the ABCDE Bundle is implemented and increasing success in care delivery (Louzon et al., 2017). These evaluation programs will be used in this project. The ABCDE Bundle has been shown to improve care for MV patients with fluctuating hemodynamics (Ren et al., 2017). A cross-sectional before and after the study was performed with 143 patients on MV admitted to an ICU (Ren et al., 2017). The ABCDE Bundle was implemented, and the researchers found a decrease in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and LOS post-implementation (Ren et al., 2017). Another study by Frade-Mera et al. (2022) found that employing interventions from the ABCDE Bundle early can effectively reduce the negative impacts of sepsis. As such, early interventions following the ABCDE Bundle elements may help reduce LOS among adult patients in the HOU at the project site. It may also lead to effective pain management and decreased mortality. It is essential to understand the impact of the ABCDE bundle on ICU patients (Negro et al., 2018). The ABCDE bundle is feasible and safe as an early progressive mobilization protocol (Frade-Mera et al., 2022). With proper implementation of the bundle, mortality rates and LOS among adult patients in long-term acute care decrease (Collinsworth et al., 2020). Proper ABCDE Bundle implementation can also reduce the incidence of sepsis (Collinsworth et al., 2020). Consequently, when implemented and used as standard practice, the bundle can reduce care costs per patient (Liu et al., 2021). Evidence showed a relationship between the level of sedation and delirium incidence in patients who are critically ill (van den Boogaard et al., 2020). The ABCDE Bundle can address these problems and reduce delirium incidence by improving proper sedation. Additionally, research showed decreased mortality and LOS when the bundle is implemented (Pun et al., 2019). Some authors may also focus on specific populations of patients (e.g., those with acute respiratory failure) or look at bundle implementation in a more general sense (Hsieh et al., 2019). The results may differ according to the location (the US vs. International), target population (MV patients vs. all critically ill adults), and outcome measures (implementation of the ABCDE Bundle vs. measurement of adherence to the ABCDE Bundle) (Liu et al., 2021). Otusanya et al. (2022) performed a retrospective cohort study involving MV patients admitted to an ICU. The findings showed that it is practical, reliable, and valid (Otusanya et al., 2022). Further, Pun et al. (2019) asserted that the ABCDE Bundle effectively promotes quality and routine care, thus promoting an effective recovery process. Barnes-Daly et al.’s (2017) study showed a gradual decrease in mortality and LOS when implementing the bundle for critically ill patients. Therefore, implementing the ABCDE bundle is appropriate for this quality improvement project since it has been shown to improve patient outcomes, including LOS. Loberg et al. (2022) asserted that quality improvement initiatives could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the ABCDEF Bundle elements on different clinical outcomes. Early interventions based on the ABCDE Bundle elements also promote positive patient results and patient satisfaction (Balas et al., 2022; DeMellow et al., 2020; Otusanya et al., 2022). However, for accurate and reliable results, a systematic review of multiple studies focused on implementing the ABCDE Bundle is required (Otusanya et al., 2022). A major limitation of the current literature related to bundle implementation is the poor generalizability of results since most studies were conducted at a single site. Another limitation to the generalizability of the findings is the use of different methodologies. Some studies used observational designs, while others used randomized controlled trials (Balas et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Some studies also showed that the ABCDE Bundle effectively improves patient outcomes, while others conclude that more research is needed (van den Boogaard et al., 2020). Some studies suggested that adherence to the ABCDE bundle is more important than implementing the ABCDE Bundle, while other studies suggested that both adherence and implementation are essential (Boehm et al., 2017; DeMellow et al., 2020). In addition, some studies did not include a control group, making it difficult to determine whether the ABCDE Bundle was responsible for improved patient outcomes (van den Boogaard et al., 2020). Other studies had small sample sizes, limiting the generalizability of the findings (Loberg et al., 2022). Finally, there are some controversies surrounding the use of the ABCDE Bundle. Some researchers have argued that the bundle is too complicated and expensive to implement, while others assert that the benefits justify the costs (Hsieh et al., 2019). One fundamental gap identified in the literature is a need for more research on patient populations not traditionally considered high risk for developing sepsis, such as those admitted to an ICU for other reasons (e.g., respiratory failure, renal failure) (Frade-Mera et al., 2022). No studies have examined using the ABCDE Bundle in an LTACH setting. Additional research is needed on the impact of the ABCDE Bundle on patients without sepsis and in LTACHs to determine the applicability of the bundle in other patient populations and settings (Collinsworth et al., 2020). Applying the ABCDE Bundle is a practical EBP that can improve outcomes for patients requiring acute care. Research showed that the EBP approaches in the bundle can significantly improve pain management and reduce over-sedation and delirium incidence (Bardwell et al., 2020). This multidisciplinary process involves physical therapists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and nurse assistants to achieve holistic, high-quality patient care (Chen et al., 2021). It was essential to review the literature concerning the ABCDE Bundle and understand the impacts of EBP on reducing sleep deprivation, agitation, immobility, and delirium among patients in critical care units. Nurses can use the ABCDE assessment tools to develop patient-oriented care plans that recognize the patient’s needs, thereby increasing confidence, autonomy, and recovery rates (Sinvani et al., 2018). Predicting and preventing delirium among critical care patients is possible. Proper and timely delirium management can significantly reduce adverse healthcare outcomes and LOS (Zhang et al., 2021). This quality improvement project will add to the current literature and may demonstrate the effectiveness of the ABCDE Bundle elements on clinical outcomes. Evidence-Based Practice Question The quality improvement project will focus on implementing the ABCDE Bundle to impact LOS. Extensive research was identified that supported implementing the ABCDE Bundle in an LTACH. Research showed that adherence to the bundle has improved acute care patients’ survival rates, brain functioning, and overall patient care (Barnes-Daly et a., 2017). It has improved patient outcomes and can decrease mortality rates and LOS. The bundle effectively reduces the length of stay for elderly patients and thus should be implemented in clinical practice (Frade-Mera et al., 2022). Additionally, the ABCDEF Bundle is a cost-effective way to improve patient outcomes by reducing direct and indirect healthcare costs (Otusanya et al., 2022). The evidence-based practice question is: To what degree will the translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE Bundle impact the length of stay among adult patients in a high observation unit in a long-term acute care hospital in urban Virginia? To what degree will the implementation of a translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE Bundle impact LOS among adult patients in a long-term acute care hospital in urban Virginia? The affected population will be hospitalized adult patients in the HOU of an LTACH. This population can suffer from ineffective interventions, which increases adverse outcomes related to their illnesses. As a result, the population tends to have an increased LOS, which incurs higher healthcare costs. The project will address this problem by examining how the ABCDE Bundle impact LOS among patients needing long-term acute care in an HOU. Change Recommendation: Validation of the ABCDE Bundle Multiple primary and secondary research studies demonstrated that the ABCDE Bundle could improve patient outcomes and reduce care costs (Zhang et al., 2021). In their study, Hsieh et al. (2019) noted a substantial reduction in the duration of MV, LOS, and cost after implementing the ABCDE Bundle. Evidence also indicated that the ABCDE Bundle’s components are clearly defined, flexible, and can quickly empower multidisciplinary teams to share the care of critically ill patients (Boehm et al., 2017). The ABCDE Bundle will promote interaction across the unit, which will increase pain control and help patients safely participate in higher-order physical and cognitive activities earlier. The ABCDE Bundle has been shown to address the adverse effects of critical illnesses by reducing MV duration, improving early mobility, and ensuring timely assessment and treatment of pain and delirium. The bundle represents one of the most effective methods for creating a culture shift when treating various categories of patients in an ICU (Pun et al., 2019). Based on the findings from current qualitative and quantitative studies, it is evident that the ABCDE Bundle offers a well-rounded method for improving patient care and optimizing research utilization (Zhang et al., 2021). The bundle improves pain control by increasing family and patient engagement and healthcare providers’ use of higher-order cognitive and physical activities (Schallom et al., 2020). Therefore, It is recommended to implement the ABCDE Bundle to reduce MV duration, improve mobility, reduce the incidence of delirium, reduce the use of sedation, and improve pain identification (Frade-Mera et al., 2022). This project will focus on the patient outcome of reduced LOS. Theoretical Framework Nurses promote health, especially when patients lack knowledge, strength, or willingness to observe healthcare needs. Nurses also provide patients with spiritual, physical, and biological therapy. Nursing theories help nurses meet patient needs by assisting nurses to understand their role in healthcare (Brown, 1964). Nursing theories provide the foundations of nursing practice, generate knowledge, and indicate which direction nursing should develop in the future (Brown, 1964). Theories also provide rational and scientific reasoning for nurses’ care (Dziak, 2023). Nursing theories often guide knowledge development and direct education, research, and practice (Fitzpatrick & Whall, 1996). Virginia Henderson’s nursing will guide the implementation of the ABCDE Bundle needs theory. Henderson (1966) was a nursing theorist who developed a blueprint to ensure that nursing practice is fine-tuned to meet patients’ interests. Henderson’s theory outlines the importance of patient autonomy in improving care delivery in the healthcare facility. According to Henderson (1966), healthcare practitioners should understand basic human needs and how nurses can meet them, promoting care delivery. Henderson’s theory provides a solid foundation for nursing practice and fosters ongoing growth and knowledge geared toward addressing patients’ needs. For the effective implementation of this project, there must be a collaboration between patients and healthcare providers so that the identified needs align with the patient’s goals and expectations. While quality improvement is challenging, Kotter’s eight-step change model can facilitate implementation procedures. Kotter (1995) asserted that change is related to a positive culture, urgency, strategy, vision, and motivation; therefore, using Kotter’s theory can encourage nurses to implement evidence-based practices (EBP) to promote the care delivery process and patient satisfaction. In the change process, communication is paramount, especially between nurses and other healthcare professionals. Various stakeholders will be required to support the implementation of the ABCDE Bundle to impact the LOS of adult patients needing long-term acute care. Nursing Theory Nurses help patients gain knowledge and independence to address their needs as rapidly as possible (Henderson, 1966). Virginia Henderson’s (1966) nursing needs theory will serve as a vital component in the early identification of the needs of the patients. Specifically, Henderson’s nursing needs theory will offer a systems approach to focus on the human need for protection and relief from stress (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). Henderson (1966) identified that the unique function of a nurse is to assist an individual, sick or healthy, in performing activities that contribute to health or recovery (or to peaceful death). These actions would be performed unaided if the patient had the strength, will, or knowledge. Henderson viewed nursing as applying logical approaches to solving a problem (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). The theory categorizes nursing into 14 components based on the needs of humans (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). The first nine are physiological: breathing normally, eating and drinking adequately, excretion, mobility and maintaining body postures, getting enough sleep and rest, wearing suitable clothing, maintaining body temperatures by wearing different clothes in different environments, maintaining body hygiene, and avoiding dangers and endangering others. The tenth and fourteenth components are psychological aspects of learning and communication, explicitly expressing emotions, fears, or needs through communication. The eleventh is worshipping, working to convey a sense of accomplishment, and participating in various recreational activities (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). Using this theory in the quality project will aid nursing in implementing the ABCDEF Bundle. Henderson’s nursing needs theory will be used during the project to illuminate the problem of longer LOS associated with PICS because the theory can anticipate the effects of interventions that can be applied to strengthen the lines of defense against stress (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). This theory has components that effectively resonate with the concepts and interventions of the ABCDE Bundle. For example, the theory can explain why critical illness can induce higher stress levels among patients in the HOU, making the patients present with signs of delirium and agitation. In such cases, a patient’s stress may manifest during mechanical ventilation or sedation, and patients may attempt to make sense of what they have seen or heard in unfamiliar settings and environments (Chen et al., 2021). Henderson (1966) identified that the unique function of the nurse is to assist individuals who are sick or well. Henderson’s nursing needs theory highlights the basic human needs and how nurses can meet those needs. This component will help to achieve the goal of improving patient outcomes. Using the theory during the ABCDE Bundle implementation will help nurses identify patients’ problems on time and use prevention measures, which can reduce LOS and improve patient outcomes. Synthesis of Nursing Theory Henderson’s needs theory has been used in multiple studies to improve patient outcomes by focusing specifically on the needs of patients. For instance, Fernandes et al. (2016) applied Henderson’s theory to a working elderly individual using the nursing process. The study employed nursing diagnoses, outcomes, and interventions based on Henderson’s fundamental human needs theory. The study revealed that nursing diagnoses predominantly centered on the biological dimension. At the same time, interventions comprised one-on-one counseling and educational undertakings aimed at fulfilling the fundamental human requirements of the elderly individual. The application of Henderson’s theory highlights its significance in enhancing the welfare and contentment of employed older adults. Fernandes et al. (2016) demonstrated the potential benefits of utilizing Henderson’s theory in the nursing process for elderly individuals who are employed. This approach can enhance their physical health and overall well-being and satisfaction. Henderson’s theory underscores the holistic approach to meeting the basic human needs of the elderly workforce by prioritizing individual counseling and educational activities. Two other researchers who used Henderson’s theory are Nicely and DeLario ( 2011) and Armijo (2012). Nicely and DeLario (2011) utilize Henderson’s theory to examine organ donation for transplantation. Organ donation coordinators typically registered nurses, are essential in managing organ donor, their family and friends, and caregivers. Healthcare professionals can improve the quality of care during the organ donation process by addressing the physiological, psychological, and social needs of the individuals involved, as suggested by Henderson’s concepts. Henderson’s theory is applied to the specific field of organ donation for transplantation by Nicely and DeLario (2011). The authors emphasize organ donation coordinators’ crucial function, mainly registered nurses, in delivering comprehensive care to organ donors, their relatives, acquaintances, and caregivers. Healthcare professionals can enhance the quality of care and support during organ donation by incorporating Henderson’s principles, encompassing physiological, psychological, and social needs. This approach benefits all parties involved. Armijo (2012) examines the use of Henderson’s theory in providing advanced nursing care in a pediatric ward. The author acknowledges the need for a theoretical framework to quantify nursing workload beyond medical diagnoses. The research indicates that pediatric ward nurses utilize Henderson’s 14 basic needs as a framework for patient evaluation. However, they prioritize the initial nine needs when devising and executing care plans. Implementing Henderson’s nursing theory and training nurses on its application can facilitate the effective delivery of advanced nursing care in the pediatric ward. Armijo (2012) demonstrated the necessity of a theoretical framework to measure nursing workload in advanced pediatric nursing care by implementing Henderson’s theory. Nurses in the pediatric ward recognize Henderson’s 14 basic needs during the patient assessment but prioritize the first nine needs in their care planning and implementation. The successful performance of advanced nursing care for pediatric patients can be achieved by integrating a nursing plan based on Henderson’s theory and providing training to support nurses in utilizing the model. This approach promotes patient-centered and holistic care delivery. The studies demonstrate the practical application of Virginia Henderson’s nursing theory in diverse healthcare settings. Based on the literature, Henderson’s theory is a practical framework for ensuring quality nursing care. Integrating the principles of the ABCDE bundle into quality improvement initiatives can enhance patient outcomes and overall care quality by addressing their physiological, psychological, and social needs. Henderson’s theory can guide the nursing process, including diagnosis, assessment, planning, evaluation, and implementation, to deliver comprehensive, patient-centered care. Evidence-Based Change Model John Kotter’s eight-step change model will guide the implementation of the ABCDE Bundle. The framework was introduced in a book titled Leading Change, which showed that nearly 70% of change initiatives fail (Kotter, 1995). Kotter’s (1995) model outlines eight steps that can be applied in implementing organizational change. The model was first developed in 1995 and outlined how to ensure success and reduce failure in business (Kotter, 1995). Kotter identifies eight steps that are crucial to implementing change. The model was developed by determining the core values, the ultimate vision, and the strategies necessary to realize organizational change (Guzman et al., 2011). The change model requires the organizational leaders to define a change in a way that is easily understandable and easy to follow. Kang et al. (2022) stated that urgency needs to be developed before implementing proposed interventions. According to Kotter (2012), urgency refers to identifying the existing threats and discussing weaknesses with the stakeholders and colleagues to support an intervention. The second step is creating a guiding coalition, or producing competent leaders and professionals to steer the agenda and influence staff involved in the implementation process. Third, the team develops a vision and strategies (Kotter, 2012). In this step, a clear vision of how the organization will look if the change is implemented is developed and disseminated. The next step is communicating the change vision and avoiding barriers (Kotter, 2012). Then, short-term wins related to the change are outlined to encourage buy-in (Kotter, 2012). The next step is building the change, which ensures the team works to achieve the change and measure progress. Building change ensures everyone adapts to a new process by illustrating its importance and training them with the skills necessary to maintain the new requirements. The last step is to make the change stick (Kotter, 2012). These steps will be used to implement the ABCDE Bundle. First, urgency will be created. This initial step will help stakeholders understand the implications of longer LOS and the need to improve patient outcomes and reduce care costs. The project manager developed the patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question (PICO) during this stage. Building a coalition is the second step. During this step, the project manager will meet with key stakeholders to formulate quality improvement buy-in from those who could directly support the bundle’s implementation. Involving stakeholders will foster interdisciplinary collaboration and may enhance the project’s outcomes. When creating a vision, the project developed a proposed future for the HOU based on predictions of the patient outcome that will guide the staff and stakeholders involved and enhance decision-making processes. During this stage, the project manager will create an interdisciplinary team that includes a nurse, respiratory therapist, physical therapist, and physician who will serve as bundle champions. According to Kotter (2012), the fourth step is communicating the vision. During this stage, the project manager will inform all staff members of the bundling initiative and desired outcomes, including how they can help the organization and patients. The fifth step is empowering others, which fosters growth, thereby allowing staff and leaders to achieve their highest potential. During this stage, the project management plans to help clinical staff identify which bundle elements are most important to them. They can then serve as a resource to others, leading to the sixth step: creating quick wins. Short-term wins will help maintain momentum and engagement. Weekly announcements will be made on the project’s progress during day and night shift safety huddles. The seventh step is building on the change. This step will involve stakeholders to ensure all staff and team members work to achieve the change and measure progress. During this stage, the bundle champions will be acknowledged for their contributions (Guzman et al., 2011). Throughout the project, the bundle champions will identify the necessary resources, distribute roles among the staff, and report directly to the project manager. The eighth step is embedding change. This step is crucial to cultural change within an organization by demonstrating the importance of an intervention and its effects on patient care and clinical outcomes, specifically LOS. In this stage, project findings will be disseminated throughout the HOU and LTACH to determine if the continued implementation of the ABCDE Bundle is warranted. Synthesis of Change Model The intricate nature of organizational change demands meticulous planning and execution. Integrating quality improvement interventions, such as the ABCDE bundle, can substantially enhance patient care and outcomes in the healthcare industry. The scholarly works authored by Kuo and Chen (2019), Sorensen et al. (2016), and Eller et al. (2023) have made noteworthy contributions to the existing body of literature on the application of Kotter’s eight-step model in the execution of organizational change endeavors, with a specific emphasis on the healthcare industry. In a research study on age-friendly hospital (AFH) accreditation, Kuo and Chen (2019) used Kotter’s change model to assess how workers’ attitudes toward the elderly and their understanding of aging had changed. According to the article, the success of AFH certification was mainly due to the selection of a chief executive officer, the creation of a steering committee, interdepartmental and multidisciplinary collaboration, and the solicitation of support from all workers. The research used Kotter’s framework to show how the model may direct the use of the ABCDE bundle by highlighting the significance of leadership, collaboration, and employee engagement. Kuo and Chen (2019) looked at the implementation of the age-friendly hospital (AFH) accreditation and how it affected the knowledge and attitudes of workers in their research. They determined crucial elements for a successful AFH certification by using Kotter’s change model, including selecting a CEO, creating a steering committee, encouraging collaboration, and enlisting the help of all staff members. These results show the importance of leadership, teamwork, and employee involvement in fostering positive change and guaranteeing the effective adoption of the ABCDE bundle in healthcare settings. They also directly relate to the implementation of the ABCDE bundle. Sorensen et al. (2016) investigated how medication management services were implemented in six Minnesota health systems. The research used Kotter’s eight-step model to pinpoint the themes connected to the effective integration of medication management programs. The themes of the three phases of Kotter’s model—creating an environment for change, including empowering the whole company and executing and maintaining change—were grouped together. This study emphasizes the value of creating a welcoming atmosphere, supporting team-based care, and overcoming obstacles while implementing the ABCDE bundle. According to Sorensen et al. (2016), Kotter’s eight-step model should be followed to create an environment for change, including the whole organization, and execute sustainable changes for medication management services to be successfully integrated into Minnesota’s health systems. The research stressed the significance of fostering team-based care, creating a supportive culture, and overcoming implementation difficulties. These results are directly related to the ABCDE bundle’s deployment since they highlight the need for an encouraging corporate culture, provider engagement, and proactive problem-solving for the bundle’s successful adoption. Eller et al. (2023) focused on the sustenance of In Situ Simulation (ISS) programs, which offer healthcare organizations benefits in terms of enhancing patient safety. Kotter’s theory of change management served as the basis for the “longitudinal pre-brief,” a theoretical framework created by the researchers. This project’s goal was to provide a strategic plan for the successful implementation and ongoing viability of the International Space Station (ISS) program. The framework for leadership in the context of organizational transformation consists of eight distinct phases. The procedure involves determining the goals of essential stakeholders, creating a group vision, inspiring participants, and incorporating simulation into the business culture. By using this approach, healthcare organizations may successfully deploy and maintain the ABCDE bundle by promoting active involvement, getting the needed resources, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement. The three articles provide light on how to use Kotter’s eight-step model for conducting healthcare-related organizational change efforts. The research shows that quality improvement initiatives, like the ABCDE bundle, need strong leadership, teamwork, employee buy-in, and a receptive organizational culture. Improved patient outcomes and quality of treatment are possible when healthcare companies use Kotter’s methodology to successfully negotiate the complexity of change. Integration of the Christian Worldview A lack of quality healthcare is a widespread problem that affects many people and groups. Although various solutions have been recommended to address the issue through legislative and social works, a stable and more effective solution is yet to be achieved. A healthcare team should be dedicated to holistic patient care and committed to clinical service excellence. Interventions that inspire passion in the workforce and a dedication to patient wellness and wholeness are required. The mission and vision of the organization where this project will take place are to extend compassionate care to all those affected by a medical illness who need medical care. The Christian principles of human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, and working for the typical good play a significant role in the organization’s care delivery model (Moorman, 2015). Implementing the ABCDE Bundle aligns with those principles through the relief of suffering and the promotion of wholeness. Further, Grand Canyon University’s doctrinal statement aligns with implementing the ABCDE Bundle. According to the doctrinal statement, students trained at the university can incorporate the beliefs and values of God into practice. They can provide a framework for ethical thinking to drive God’s plan and purpose when initiating change. Incorporating Christian worldviews into this quality improvement project will serve a holistic approach to patient care, increasing patient and family satisfaction and improving clinical outcomes. Summary Implementing the ABCDE Bundle can enhance patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. The ABCDE Bundle comprises EBPs that healthcare professionals can implement to coordinate multidisciplinary patient care in ICUs (Chen et al., 2021). All the components of the bundle act as effective interventions for patients admitted to acute care settings; however, more research is needed on the bundle’s use outside of the ICU. This project will address this gap in practice. Henderson’s nursing will guide its needs theory and Kotter’s eight-step change model. Chapter 3 outlines the project’s methodology and design, while Chapters 4 and 5 present the results and how these results add to the current literature. Chapter 3: Project Design and Methodology Long stays in acute care facilities can increase an individual’s PICS risk. Length of stay also indicates care quality, with longer LOS denoting poorer quality. This quality improvement project intends to improve the quality of health care for patients needing long-term acute care by implementing strategies that may reduce the length of stay. According to the literature, quality improvement initiatives can reduce adverse events and unnecessary hospitalizations (Ballard, 2019). The Magnet Recognition Program® and the Magnet Model guide professional practice care quality, disseminate best practices on nursing services, and identify excellence in healthcare delivery (Petto et al., 2022). These goals can be met by research, determining and implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs), or instituting a quality improvement initiative. Research provides empirical evidence to support nursing practice and help provide optimal patient care (Altman, 2020). Evidence-based practice ensures that clinical practices follow the best evidence available (Ginex et al., 2021). Research generates new knowledge and validates existing knowledge. Scientific methods ensure that the results are valid, credible, and reliable. Alternately, EBP is the unique outcome of the research. When determining an EBP, the goal is to seek, not develop, new knowledge. EBP contributes to a healthcare system’s mission and vision by making care decisions using the best evidence available (Mukerji et al., 2019). Determining EBP relies on clinical expertise, patient values, and preferences to deliver holistic care (Hagle et al., 2020). Quality improvement projects are distinct from research and EBP but related to both practices. Quality improvement initiatives use principles and strategies from organizational philosophies to ensure systematic, data-guided approaches to improve health outcomes and processes are implemented (Dziak, 2023). Quality improvement focuses on improving patient outcomes by implementing research-driven EBP, such as the ABCDE Bundle. When performing a quality improvement project, a project team defines the desired outcomes, identifies how they will be measured, and then develops a plan to implement an evidence-based intervention. This project is a quality improvement initiative, and this chapter outlines the planning and implementation process that will be employed. Purpose The purpose of this quality improvement project is to determine if the implementation of a translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE Bundle will impact the length of stay among adult patients. The project will be piloted over eight weeks in an urban Virginian long-term acute care hospital. Length of stay is a significant concern for patients and healthcare organizations. Longer LOS increases healthcare costs, patients’ risk of developing hospital-acquired infections, and mortality rates (Moraes et al., 2022). The LOS has been increasing at the project site among patients needing long-term acute care. Seventy-five percent of the 60 days before this project had a LOS longer than the national average of 25 days. There is no standardized protocol in place for reducing LOS. This quality improvement project addresses this problem by determining if implementing the ABCDE Bundle impacts LOS. The average LOS will be collected from the electronic health record (EHR) for a comparative and implementation group of patients. The average LOS of these two groups will be compared following a quantitative, quasi-experimental design to determine the project’s clinical or statistical significance. The project will contribute to nursing practice by supporting the best EBP nurses can employ to address LOS in acute care facilities. The ABCDE Bundle involves assessing a patient’s needs, involving the patient and their family in a care plan, and implementing patient-centered approaches to improve care and reduce adverse outcomes from PICS. Research has shown that the ABCDE Bundle can reduce LOS among adult patients in short-term acute care, and this project demonstrates if this intervention is appropriate and feasible for long-term care settings (Boltey et al., 2019; Moraes et al., 2022). Project Planning and Procedures Project planning is vital to systematic thinking and was initiated to determine the necessary steps for the project. In this project planning phase, the project team developed the goals and timeline and considered ways to mitigate risks during project implementation. During the project planning phase, contextual factors that will influence the project were considered to understand best how to bring about and deliver the change. Project planning included interprofessional collaboration, project management plan development, and feasibility analysis. Interprofessional Collaboration According to Li-Hui et al. (2021), organizational support is considered one of the most critical factors affecting nurse practitioners’ (NPs) job satisfaction. Healthcare administrators must, therefore, promote and advocate for organizational support when implementing a change initiative to improve patient outcomes (Li-Hui et al., 2021). Supportive leadership enhances engagement and trust in an organization, which mediates overall job satisfaction (Meng & Berger, 2018). The stakeholders at the project site will offer organizational support in various ways. First, all leaders in the designated units will create a positive, supportive environment to ensure nurses’ engagement in the implementation of the project. A positive work environment will increase satisfaction with the task at hand to ensure the completion of the project (Li-Hui et al., 2021). Internal stakeholders, including administration, seek ways to improve patient care and reduce costs by lowering LOS. The administration will be informed of the project to ensure engagement in the designated units, and they will support sustaining the project if the results are positive. Frontline staff members, such as nurses, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, and physical and occupational therapists, were involved in planning the quality improvement project. The primary care providers, such as nurses, NPs, nurse bundle champions, and physicians, will be responsible for implementing the project. When nurse leaders use nurse champions in a structured change process, staffing resources are maximized without incurring additional costs, which makes quality improvement initiatives more feasible and sustainable (Mount & Anderson, 2015). Nurse bundle champions will be in charge of monitoring the ABCDE Bundle deployment. They will collect the bundle checklists and ensure complete documentation and implementation of the bundle elements. Bundle champions will be ideal for leading the intervention due to their training, experience, skillset, and competencies. Furthermore, bundle champions are skilled in coordination and effective communication, which will enhance teamwork in the targeted units to achieve a smooth implementation of the ABCDE Bundle. Nurses are also integral to the project’s implementation because they are frontline staff providing day-to-day care. Mount and Anderson (2015) asserted that bedside nurses are empowered through peer-to-peer collaboration throughout the change process. Bedside nurses will be responsible for initiating and documenting the individual bundle elements. A project manager oversees a project (Aubry & Lavoie-Tremblay, 2018). In this project, the project manager will lead and manage the implementation team by facilitating interactions among implementation team members, frontline staff, and administration. The implementation team members will offer the necessary expertise in the subject and collaborate with frontline staff to ensure the successful integration of the ABCDE Bundle into the daily workflows on the target unit. Project Management Plan The project will begin after approval from the Grand Canyon University Institutional Review Board (IRB) (see Appendix E) and end with data analysis. After approval, staff will be educated about the project purpose and implementation process. Nurses, certified nursing assistants, respiratory therapists, critical care physicians, hospitalists, pharmacists, and physical and occupational therapists will be invited to attend a mandatory in-service. The in-service training will require approximately 20 minutes and be held at a mandatory annual skills fair. The sessions will be available for two weeks from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The training will include a pre-assessment, a PowerPoint presentation on using the bundle components, a bedside rounding checklist, a delirium assessment worksheet, and a mobility chart (see Appendix D). Handouts will be provided, and then a post-test will occur. Posters and flipcharts will be available in the target unit to visually remind participants about the project and the bundle process. After completing the training, the ABCDE Bundle will be implemented for eight weeks. All patients who meet the inclusion criteria and are admitted to the HOU will be included in the implementation group. Nurses will assess patients’ need for bundle elements and use any elements required indicated by the assessments. The assessments and elements will be documented on a bedside ABCDE Bundle checklist daily (see Appendix G). The ABCDE Bundle checklist follows the task of each bundle element. The bedside nurses will be required to complete the checklist and if applicable, make comments for un-checked items. Completed checklists will be stored in a designated folder located in the nursing supervisor’s office. Quantitative data on LOS and patients’ demographics will be collected from the electronic health record (EHR) for the eight weeks before and after initiating the project. The data will consist of the ages, genders, primary diagnosis, and LOS. Retrospective data will be collected and included two months before implementation. The project will ensure nurses optimize sedation levels, monitor for delirium, and plan for routine sedation interruptions, pain management, and early mobility. Feasibility Six healthcare staff will be selected to act as bundle champions. They will help in the rollout and implementation of the project. The champions will be tasked with ensuring the project’s success. Adequate staff is available to carry out the bundle initiatives and for the ongoing time needed to educate other healthcare providers, such as bedside nurses, doctors, mid-level managers, technicians, and pharmacists. Access to patient health information (PHI) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28 software will also be required to measure the project’s outcomes. The EHR does not guarantee that testing will be valid or that patients receive appropriate and timely action after test results become available (Murphy et al., 2019). To enable efficient data extraction, a validated process must be used (Joseph et al., 2022). It will be necessary that all PHI is uniformly documented by caregivers in the EHR. Staff will be trained to ensure documentation is uniform and standard. Project costs include paid staff training, printing educational materials (i.e., handouts, poster boards, and flip charts), and capital equipment purchases, such as stretcher chairs (see Appendix F). The estimated cost of conducting the project is $5150.00. This increased cost is justified since the successful implementation of the ABCDE Bundle has been shown to reduce LOS in prior research, and reduced LOS decreases the costs incurred by care delivery (Otusanya et al., 2022). Setting and Sample Population The project site is an LTACH located in an urban city in Virginia. The facility treats critically-ill adult patients seeking surgical, medical, cardiac, neurological, and long-term respiratory management. Long-term respiratory management includes mechanical ventilator support, high-flow oxygen, and tracheostomy care. The LTACH staff can perform minor surgical interventions and provide rehabilitation services. Setting The project site is a free-standing, 60-bed LTACH in urban Virginia with single and double occupancy rooms. Staff includes physicians, NPs, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants, respiratory therapists, and physical and occupational therapists. The LTACH provides on-site emergent care services such as mechanical intubation. Approximately two to five patients are admitted daily from surrounding short-term acute care hospitals, with varying long-term care needs. There are 46 designated high observation unit (HOU) beds for patients who are hemodynamically unstable and require acute care monitoring. The average daily census is approximately 43 to 50. Population and Sample The project population will include all eligible adults admitted or transferred to the HOU. The HOU cares for patients hospitalized in an ICU for three days or more who require ongoing long-term acute services related to their hospitalization. Inclusion criteria are patients 18 or older admitted to the HOU and requiring active life-saving support and monitoring. The exclusion criteria are patients younger than 18 who are not admitted to the HOU and do not require life-saving measures. The sample will include a comparative and an implementation group. The comparative group will consist of all individuals admitted to the HOU in the eight weeks before the project begins. The implementation group will include all patients admitted to the HOU eight weeks after implementing the ABCDE Bundle. The sample size was obtained by using a sample size calculator. The HOU admits an average of five patients per week. For a confidence level of 95% and a 5% margin of error, the sample should be 32 (Calculator.net, 2022). A sample of 32 will be adequate to detect a clinically or statistically significant change in LOS. A purposive sampling procedure includes defining the research problem, determining the population, defining the characteristics of the sample, collecting data, and analyzing and interpreting the results (Campbell et al., 2020). A convenience sample of patients who meet the inclusion criteria will be purposively selected using the EHR. Informed consent will not be required in this project. The informed consent process involves educating participants about an intervention’s benefits, risks, and alternatives; it is a legal and ethical obligation during a study (Arifin, 2018). Confidentiality measures, including not disclosing participants’ identities, personal information, and responses to the public without their explicit consent, will be followed. Data will be collected on LOS from the EHR for a comparative and implementation sample, reported in aggregate form, stored according to the data retention policy at the site, and destroyed three years after the findings have been published. Collecting and comparing LOS data will indicate if implementing the ABCDE Bundle impacted this patient outcome. Data Collection Procedures Data collection will only occur once IRB is received. A hospital administrator will extract comparative data from the EHR after the ABCDEF Bundle educational intervention. The same data administrator will also extract implementation LOS data. Demographic data will also be collected to characterize the sample. The demographic data will include patients’ ages, genders, and primary diagnoses. The primary diagnosis will include surgical, medical, trauma, neurosurgical, cardiac, and neurological options. Codes will be assigned to identify the patients, and the data will then be organized using SPSS version 28 for analysis. Data Source This DPI project will rely on secondary data from the facility’s EHR. A data administrator will extract de-identified comparative and implementation data from the site’s data tracking spreadsheet on LOS and patient demographics. The EHR will serve as a valuable tool for data extrapolation. While EHRs can potentially improve communication by managing the delivery of electronic test orders and facilitating the delivery of essential findings to a clinician, they do not guarantee that testing will be completed promptly or that patients will receive appropriate and timely action after test results become available (Murphy et al., 2019). The EHR is password protected to safeguard the privacy of patients. Validity and reliability are essential in research. Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures the intended construct (Leedy et al., 2019). Reliability and validity are concepts used to evaluate the quality of research (Hassey et al., 2001). Altman et al. (2018) conducted a study to evaluate the accuracy of information obtained from an EHR system for obstetric research. For several perinatal parameters, including birth type, labor induction, labor augmentation, cervical ripening, vertex presentation, and postpartum hemorrhage, the research compares data collected via automated EHR reporting with manually extracted data. The researchers used data from 3,250 women who gave birth at a significant hospital in the Pacific Northwest to perform the study (Altman et al., 2018). The authors discovered that the EHR data and manual chart abstraction for delivery techniques (including vacuum-assisted, forceps-assisted, cesarean, and spontaneous vaginal births) were in virtually perfect agreement. A study by van Melle et al. (2018) evaluated the dependability and accuracy of a medical record review process for detecting transitional safety incidents (TSIs) within healthcare environments. The investigation aimed to assess the efficacy of the measuring instrument employed in detecting TSIs and to appraise the concurrence between appraisers and a benchmark standard of TSIs that can be identified objectively. A retrospective study utilized the medical records of 301 primary and secondary care patients in the Netherlands (van Melle et al., 2018). The medical records were evaluated for TSIs by a group of six proficient reviewers comprising general practitioners and specialists. Two reviewers evaluated The inter-rater reliability through the independent review of 10% of the medical records. The TSIs that were identified were subjected to a validity assessment by comparing them to a reference standard consisting of three TSIs that were objectively identifiable. The study’s findings indicate that the reviewers were able to detect Transitional Safety Incidents (TSIs) in approximately 17.3% of the transitional medical records. However, there was considerable variability observed between the reviewers. The inter-rater agreement in detecting a TSI was found to be 0%, with Cohen’s kappa coefficient, a statistical measure of agreement, indicating low reliability at -0.15. The reviewers’ identification of objectively identifiable TSIs was limited to only 22%, suggesting a significant proportion of TSIs needed to be noticed (van Melle et al., 2018). The study’s results indicate that the measurement tool employed by clinicians to identify TSIs in transitional medical records had low reliability, leading to the conclusion that the tool’s effectiveness is questionable. However, the clinical professionals were able to identify some valid TSIs, but a considerable proportion of them were overlooked. According to the research findings, it is imperative to restructure the record review process to enhance the dependability and accuracy of detecting Transitional Safety Incidents (TSIs) in healthcare transitions. The research acknowledges certain constraints, such as utilizing a suboptimal reference standard and involving a heterogeneous group of reviewers (van Melle et al., 2018). A study conducted by Chan et al. (2010) reviewed empirical studies on the quality of EHR data, with a particular emphasis on attributes pertinent to quality measurement. The meta-analysis encompassed a total of 35 scholarly articles that were published subsequent to January 2004. The research investigated diverse facets of data quality, wherein 66% of the studies scrutinized data precision, 57% analyzed data entirety, and 23% evaluated data similarity (Chan et al., 2010). The reviewed studies exhibited various data elements, study settings, populations, health conditions, and EHR systems. The study underscores the significance of comprehending the factors linked to inadequate or inconsistent data quality in EHRs. The authors concluded that enhancing the accuracy and reliability of health data used for measurement and decision-making is contingent upon improving EHR data quality. While EHRs present many prospects for enhancing healthcare and conducting research, obstacles to the credibility and consistency of the data are present. To tackle these obstacles, it is imperative to adopt methodological strategies, conduct validation research, and foster cooperation among diverse stakeholders. The assurance of the dependability and accuracy of electronic health record (EHR) data is of utmost importance in generating sound research outcomes, augmenting patient safety, and advancing the standard of healthcare. Variables The independent variable is the translation of Hsieh et al.’s research on the ABCDE Bundle, and the dependent variable is LOS in the HOU. Length of stay will be calculated by noting a patient’s day of admission and discharge. LOS data will be calculated as the mean LOS for a comparative and implementation group of patients. The comparative group will include all patients meeting the eligibility criteria admitted to the HOU eight weeks before the project’s implementation. The implementation group will include all patients who meet the inclusion criteria and receive the ABCDE Bundle elements. Data Integrity and Storage Data will be collected by a data management expert at the project site. The data management expert will perform a retrospective review of the EHR using the eligibility criteria and pull data on patients’ LOS in the HOU and demographics. The data management expert will de-identify and input the information into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data will then be transferred to SPSS version 28 for analysis. LOS will be analyzed using an independent t-test. A Student’s t-test is an inferential test used to determine whether the difference in means between two samples is statistically different (Leedy et al., 2019). A t-test is a parametric procedure measuring differences in numerical data (Leedy et al., 2019). Descriptive statistics will also calculate the mean LOS and analyze patients’ demographics. According to Knapp (2018), researchers use descriptive statistics to summarize findings. A p-value of less or equal to 0.05 will indicate statistical significance (Schober et al., 2018). Data Management The methods used for data cleansing will include removing duplicates, filtering out unwanted outliers, and validating the input information (Setiyanto & Setiawan, 2022). Data security will be ensured by storing the data on a password-protected hard drive in a locked vault. Comparative and implementation data will be extracted from the EHR by a data analyst who will provide the information in an Excel spreadsheet. All PHI will be removed from the file dataset. The data will be retained for three years, and then hard copies of the checklists will be destroyed following the project site’s policy of shredding and cross-shredding, while electronic data will be destroyed by degaussing. Potential Bias and Mitigation This quality improvement project is not exempt from bias. Primarily, the project is not a randomized controlled trial. Randomized controlled trials provide strong evidence because randomizing a sample to treatment and control groups can account for confounding variables (Noyes et al., 2019). This project will use a convenience sample, a non-probability sample of individuals selected based on availability (Stratton, 2021). This approach allows researchers to gather data that would not have been possible otherwise but is prone to bias (Stratton, 2021). This bias will be mitigated using clear, objective eligibility criteria to select participants. Sampling bias occurs when a sample does not represent the larger population. It happens when the group involved needs to represent the needs and expectations of the target population. For example, the sample selected from the HOU may not represent the target population of adults needing long-term care. Selection bias is a significant issue in the design since it is difficult to determine the traits of those involved in the quality improvement project and those not involved. This bias can be mitigated by expanding the quality improvement project to additional departments in the LTACH in the future. Further, data collection is another potential bias because of the limitations of the data. Researchers should recognize that all data has errors and that no data set is perfect (Dórea & Revie, 2021). This project seeks to improve the quality of care and reduce LOS among adult patients in an LTACH. According to Watt et al. (2019), bias during a quality improvement project occurs when the process is manipulated to ensure that a specific outcome or result is achieved. Bias occurs when the researcher influences or controls the research process to achieve specific results (Flyvbjerg, 2021). In the data interpretation stage, confirmation bias may affect the results. Confirmation bias refers to ignoring specific results due to preexisting hypotheses. It is crucial to focus on the desired outcome, not the hypothesis, to avoid this bias. Last, the various basic principles of data interpretation are important to consider when translating outcomes into practice. First, it is essential to think about the validity of the data. Data validity means determining whether the data is accurate and representative of the population it is supposed to be measuring (Leonelli, 2019). In a quality improvement project, there are numerous ways to avoid bias, including ensuring that the data is collected from numerous sources and that there is data verification. Before analysis, one should confirm their sources and other related data. Finally, peer review is essential to ensure that other people can revisit the process and identify bias that could have occurred before publication. Ethical Considerations The safeguarding of individuals’ rights and privacy in the healthcare and research domains is addressed by two notable frameworks, namely the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the Belmont Report. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) established the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which imposes national standards for safeguarding health information. This rule applies to covered entities that participate in healthcare. Conversely, the Belmont Report, which emerged from the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, furnishes ethical tenets and directives for investigating human participants. Both frameworks aim to safeguard the security and privacy of individuals and their data within healthcare and research environments. Parasidis et al. (2019) state that the Belmont Report stipulates principles and guidelines for protecting human subjects involved in behavioral and biomedical research projects. Researchers follow the principles described in the Belmont Report to inform the ethical conduct of their research (Jefferson et al., 2021). The Belmont Report principles are respect, justice, and beneficence, which were used to guide the development of the project design and sampling procedures (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979).  Respect will be demonstrated by explaining confidentiality procedures, and potential conflicts of interest will be explained to the study participants before the project. Justice will be observed by not withholding the interventions from eligible patients, and beneficence will be achieved by ensuring that the nurses involved in the project follow the principle of “do no harm.” Further, the interventions in the ABCDE Bundle have been shown to improve patients’ outcomes and reduce the adverse effects of PICS, aligning with the goals of beneficence. The Grand Canyon University IRB will review the project and be determined as a quality improvement initiative. Summary The LOS of adult patients in long-term acute care is a significant concern as it increases individuals’ risk of adverse outcomes and hospital costs. Patient outcomes have been linked to increased LOS in long-term acute care (Boltey et al., 2019; Moraes et al., 2022). This quality improvement project aims to improve health care quality in the HOU of an LTACH by implementing the ABCDE Bundle. The sample will include patients who need acute care eight weeks before or after the implementation of the project. The ABCDE Bundle will be implemented after nurses are trained on the project. Data will be extracted from the EHR and then input into SPSS version 28 for analysis. The project will follow the principles outlined in the Belmont Report to ensure ethical considerations are maintained throughout implementation. Chapters 4 and 5 present the results of data analysis and explore how to sustain bundle implementation in clinical practice at the LTACH. Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results This chapter summarizes the collected data, describes how the data were analyzed, and then presents the results. Chapter 4 briefly restates the problem statement and the evidence-based practice question. The organization of the chapter is briefly outlined in this section. Ensure this chapter is written in the past tense and reflects how the project was conducted. This chapter contains the analyzed data presented in both text and tabular or figure format. The structure of the chapter is imperative. You should aim to ensure both the readability and clarity of the findings. Sufficient narrative should be provided to highlight the findings on the measurable patient outcome. Ask the following general questions before starting this chapter: Are there sufficient data to answer the evidence-based practice question asked in the project? Are there sufficient data to support the conclusions you will make in Chapter 5? Are the data clearly explained using a table, graph, chart, or text? Data Analysis Procedures This section provides a step-by-step description of the procedures to be used to conduct the data analysis. This section should be two paragraphs. The first paragraph should provide a step-by-step description of the procedures used to conduct the data analysis. In this paragraph, describe all statistical and nonstatistical analyses employed. State the specific tests you plan to use to analyze your outcome data. Rationale should be provided for each of the data analysis procedures (statistical and nonstatistical) and supported by relevant scholarly citations. The second paragraph should explain how and why the data analysis techniques selected align with the DPI project design and question. The level of the statistical significance used for the quantitative analyses is identified a priori (p < .05). Please note that the independent variables in quasi-experimental projects are a nominal or categorical level variables that are used to identify the sample or group associated with the intervention. It is the dependent variable (i.e., the project outcome measure) that directs the type of statistical analysis selected, e.g., parametric versus non-parametric. If the dependent variable is a ratio or interval, a parametric test, such as an independent t-test, should be used. If the dependent variable is an ordinal or nominal level, a non-parametric test, such as a Chi-square or Mann Whitney U, should be used. Descriptive Data of Sample Population This section provides a narrative summary of the project sample’s characteristics and demographics. Descriptive data should be collected based on the sample (there will always be data for the patient sample but include nursing staff data if applicable). It establishes the total sample size, gender, age, education level, organization, or setting and other appropriate sample characteristics. Graphic organizers, such as tables, charts, histograms, and graphs should be used to provide further clarification, organize the data, and promote readability. Ensure these data cannot lead to the identification of participants or the project setting in any analysis or narrative. All tables, graphs, and figures must always be introduced and discussed within the text prior to their presentation. Data in the tables should match data in the text exactly. When writing numbers, equations, and statistics, spell out any number that begins a sentence, title, or heading, or reword the sentence to place the number later in the narrative. In general, use Arabic numerals (11, 12, 13) when referring to whole numbers 11 and above, and spell out whole numbers below 11. There are some exceptions to this rule: If small numbers are grouped with large numbers in a comparison, use numerals (e.g., 7, 8, 10, and 13 trials); but do not do this when numbers are used for different purposes (e.g., ten items on each of four surveys). Numbers in a measurement with units (e.g., 6 cm, 5 mg dose, 2%). Numbers that represent time, dates, ages, sample or population size, scores, or exact sums of money. Numbers that represent a specific item in a numbered series (e.g., Table 1). A sample table in APA style is presented in Table 1 and more examples can be found at “Sample Tables” on the APA Style Website. Be mindful that all tables fit within the required margins, and are clean, easy to read, and formatted properly using the guidelines found in Chapter 5 (Displaying Results) of the APA Publication Manual 7th Edition. As noted, all tables and figures should be introduced in a paragraph above them. Here is an example: There were N = X patients sampled, n = x in the comparative group and n = x in the intervention group. The mean age of the comparative sample was X (SD = x), and the mean age of the intervention group was X (SD = x) (see Table 1). Table 1A Sample Data Table Showing Correct Formatting Column A M (SD) Column B M (SD) Column C M (SD) Row 1 10.1 (1.11) 20.2 (2.22) 30.3 (3.33) Row 2 20.2 (2.22) 30.3 ( 3.33) 20.2 (2.22) Row 3 30.3 (3.33) 10.1 (1.11) 10.1 (1.11) Note. Adapted from “Sampling and Recruitment in Studies of Doctoral Students,” by I.M. Investigator, 2010, Journal of Perspicuity, 25, p 100. Reprinted with permission. Results This section, which is the primary section of this chapter, presents a summary and analysis of the data in a non-evaluative, unbiased, and organized manner that relates to the evidence-based practice question. The section should also include appropriate graphic organizers, such as tables, charts, graphs, and figures. Please ensure that: The amount and quality of the data or information is sufficient to answer the evidence-based question(s) is well presented. The results of each statistical test are presented in appropriate statistical format with tables, graphs, and charts. The p-value ( p=) and test statistics are reported. Outliers, if found, are reported. The results must be presented without implication, speculation, assessment, evaluation, or interpretation. Discussion of results and conclusions are left for Chapter 5. Both descriptive and inferential statistics are required to be reported in this section. Descriptive statistics describe or summarize data sets using frequency distributions (e.g., to describe the distribution for the IQ scores in your class of 30 pupils) or graphic displays such as bar graphs (e.g., to display increases in a school district’s budget each year for the past five years), as well as histograms (e.g., to show spending per child in school and display mean, median, modes, and frequencies), line graphs (e.g., to display peak scores for the classroom group), and scatter plots (e.g., to display the relationship between two variables). Descriptive statistics also include numerical indexes such as averages, percentile ranks, measures of central tendency, correlations, measures of variability and standard deviation, and measures of relative standing. Inferential statistics describe the numerical characteristics of data, and then go beyond the data to make inferences about the population based on the sample data. Inferential statistics also estimate the characteristics of populations about population parameters using sampling distributions, or estimation. Table 2 presents example results of an independent t-test comparing Emotional Intelligence (EI) mean scores by gender. Table 2t-Test for Equality of Emotional Intelligence Mean Scores by Gender t Df p EI 1.908 34 .065 Chapter 4 can be challenging with regard to mathematical equations and statistical symbols or variables. When including an equation in the narrative, space the equation as you would words in a sentence: x + 5 = a. Punctuate equations that are in the paragraph as you would a sentence. Remember to italicize statistical and mathematical variables, except Greek letters, and if the equation is long or complicated, set it off on its own line. Refer to your APA manual for specific details on representation of statistical information. Basic guidelines include: Statistical symbols are italicized (t, F, N, n) Greek letters, abbreviations that are not variables and subscripts that function as identifiers use standard typeface, no bolding or italicization Use parentheses to enclose statistical values (p = .026) and degrees of freedom t(36) = 3.85 or F(2, 52) = 3.85 Use brackets to enclose limits of confidence intervals 95% CIs [- 5.25, 4.95] Summary This section provides a concise summary of the project results. It briefly restates essential data and data analysis presented in the chapter, and it helps the reader see and understand the relevance of the data and analysis to the evidence-based question(s). It should summarize the statistical data and results of statistical tests in relation to the evidence-based question(s). Finally, it provides a lead or transition into Chapter 5 where the implications of the data and data analysis relative to the evidence-based question(s) will be discussed. This section should be two to three paragraphs long. Chapter 5: Implications in Practice and Conclusions Introduce Chapter 5 by providing (a) a general reminder of the problem, (b) the purpose of the project, and (c) overviewing the information that will be presented in this chapter. This section should be one to two paragraphs long. Chapter 5 is perhaps the most important chapter in the practice improvement project manuscript because it presents the project investigator’s contribution to the body of knowledge. For many who read evidence-based literature, this may be the only chapter they will read. No new data or citations should be introduced in Chapter 5; however, references should be made to findings or citations presented in earlier chapters. You should articulate new frameworks and new insights. All discussions in this chapter should be presented in the simplest possible form, making sure to preserve the conditional nature of the insights. Summary of the Project This section provides a comprehensive summary of the project by describing previous chapters in the simplest possible terms. It should recap the essential points of Chapters 1 to 3. It reminds the reader of the evidence-based question(s), the main issues being evaluated, and provides a transition, and reminds the reader of how the project was conducted. This section should be no more than two paragraphs. Major Findings Summarize the major findings (results) of your DPI project. Explain the statistical significance of your project findings. Explain the clinical significance of your project findings. This section should be no more than two paragraphs. Interpretation of Findings Describe how the findings of your DPI project align with other original research studies and/or quality improvement projects by comparing and contrasting the significance of the results. Provide possible explanations as to why your project findings confirmed or opposed previous published scholarly works. If your results did not achieve statistical significance, provide possible explanations why. This section should be no more than three to four paragraphs long. Strengths and Limitations In this section, describe the strengths of your project. In this discussion, you should consider the project design or methodology, the intervention, and the unit culture. Strengths should be presented in two paragraphs. Then, summarize the limitations of your DPI project. Limitations could be related to the project timeline, threats discussed in your SWOT, etc. Discuss the efforts that were made to minimize the limitations. Limitations should be addressed in two paragraphs. Implications In this section, you should present the “so what” (i.e., why was this important) of your project based on the project results. This section should describe the types of implications that could happen as a result of this project. It also tells the reader what the DPI project results imply both theoretically and for future nursing practice. Separate sections with corresponding headings provide proper organization. Provide a transition of three to five sentences for this new section. Theoretical Implications Theoretical implications involve the interpretation of the DPI project findings in terms of the evidence-based question(s) that guided the project. It is appropriate to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the project critically and include the degree to which the conclusions are credible given the method and data. It should also include a critical, retrospective examination of the framework presented in the Chapter 2 “Scientific Underpinnings” considering the practice improvement project’s new findings. In addition, you should describe whether the results of your project or the implementation process demonstrate the need to develop new or re-think current nursing theories. This section should be no more than two paragraphs. Nursing Practice Implications In this section, explore two to three ways the DPI project findings are important for nursing practice. Will it change practice? How? This section should be no more than two paragraphs. Recommendations Provide a brief transition (three to five sentences) that describes this section of the manuscript. Recommendations for Future Projects and Researchers This section should contain a minimum of four to five recommendations for future DPI projects. Project recommendations should include the areas of project that need further examination, address project or research gaps, new patient populations, or system needs. Each recommendation should be fully explained in one paragraph and should include (a) why the future project should be conducted, (b) how the project should be conducted (methodology and design), (c) what data would be collected, and (d) how the project would advance healthcare or patient outcomes. Recommendations for Sustainability This section should describe two to three recommendations for how the DPI project can be sustained. For example, does the new practice change require a policy in order for it to be sustained? Each recommendation should be fully explained in one paragraph that includes (a) what the sustainability plan is, (b) why the sustainability plan is needed, and (c) how the sustainability plan would work at the unit, organization, state, and national levels. Include any organizations or stakeholders who should be included in the sustainability discussions and what their role or involvement should be. Plan for Dissemination This section should contain a detailed plan regarding how the DPI project results will be disseminated to others in the nursing profession and other disciplines. Provide three to four specific examples of what your plan is for dissemination for your site, the community, the local nursing community, and when applicable, nationally. Describe the appropriate audience(s) for dissemination of the DPI project results. The audience(s) should be broad and should extend beyond the academic setting. Discuss informal and formal venues for electronic dissemination. Select the most appropriate peer-reviewed journal(s) in which you could publish your DPI project findings. Discuss oral dissemination opportunities (i.e., a podium or poster presentation or abstract submission). Consider presentation opportunities at regional, state, national, or international meetings. This section should be no more than three paragraphs. Conclusion and Contributions to the Profession of Nursing Practice This final section should briefly wrap up the project. Concisely describe the contributions your DPI project has made to the nursing profession. This section should be no more than two paragraphs. References Ahtisham, Y., & Jacoline, S. (2015). Integrating nursing theory and process into practice: Virginia’s Henderson need theory. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 443-450. http://www.internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org/docs/23_ahtisham.pdf Altman, M. (2020). Why should I participate in nursing research? https://www.aacn.org/blog/why-should-i-participate-in-nursing-research Altman, M. R., Colorafi, K., & Daratha, K. B. (2018). The reliability of electronic health record data used for obstetrical research. Applied Clinical Informatics, 9(1), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1627475 American Psychiatric Association. (2021). Position statement on concerns about use of the term excited delirium and appropriate medical management in out-of-hospital contexts. https://www.psychiatry.org/about-apa/Policy-Finder/Position-Statement-on-Concerns-About-Use-of-the-Te Arifin, S. R. M. (2018). Ethical considerations in qualitative study. International Journal of Care Scholars, 1(2), 30-33. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijcs.v1i2.82 Armijo, P. P. (2012). Henderson’s theory and its application in advanced nursing care in a pediatric ward. Medwave, 12(10), e5548. https://doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2012.10.5548 Aubry, M., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2018). Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 12-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.05.012 Balas, M. C., Tan, A., Pun, B. T., Ely, E. W., Carson, S. S., Mion, L., Barnes-Daly, M. A., & Vasilevskis, E. E. (2022). Effects of a national quality improvement collaborative on ABCDEF bundle implementation. American Journal of Critical Care, 31(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2022768 Ballard, A. (2019). Framing bias in the interpretation of quality improvement data: Evidence from an experiment. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 8(5), 307. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2019.08 Bardwell, J., Brimmer, S., & Davis, W. (2020). Implementing the ABCDE Bundle, Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool, and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to reduce ventilation time. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 31(1), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2020451 Barnes-Daly, M. A., Phillips, G., & Ely, E. W. (2017). Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: Implementing PAD guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients. Critical Care Medicine, 45(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002149 Benzaghta, M. A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M. M., Erkan, I., & Rahman, M. (2021). SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.6.1.1148 Boehm, L. M., Dietrich, M. S., Vasilevskis, E. E., Wells, N., Pandharipande, P., Ely, E. W., & Mion, L. C. (2017). Perceptions of workload burden and adherence to ABCDE bundle among intensive care providers. American Journal of Critical Care, 26(4), e38-e47. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089165/ Boltey, E. M., Iwashyna, T. J., Hyzy, R. C., Watson, S. R., Ross, C., & Costa, D. K. (2019). Ability to predict team members’ behaviors in ICU teams is associated with routine ABCDE implementation. Journal of Critical Care, 51, 92-197. Brown, M. (1964). Research in the development of nursing theory: The importance of a theoretical framework in nursing research. Nursing Research, 13, 109-112. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196401320-00005 Calculator.net. (2022). Sample size calculator. https://www.calculator.net/sample-size Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walker, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652-661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206 Chan, K. S., Fowles, J. B., & Weiner, J. P. (2010). Review: electronic health records and the reliability and validity of quality measures: A review of the literature. Medical Care Research and Review: 67(5), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558709359007 Chen, C. M., Cheng, A. C., Chou, W., Selvam, P., & Cheng, C. M. (2021). Outcome of improved care bundle in acute respiratory failure patients. Nursing in Critical Care, 26(5), 380-385. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/nicc.12530 Coiera, E. (2000). When conversation is better than computation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 7(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2000.0070277 Collinsworth, A., Priest, E., & Masica, A. (2020). Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the ABCDE Bundle: Impact of bundle adherence on inpatient and 1-year mortality and costs of care. Critical Care Medicine, 48(12), 1752-1759. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004609 Collinsworth, A. W., Brown, R., Cole, L., Jungeblut, C., Kouznetsova, M., Qiu, T., Richter, K. M., Smith, S., & Masica, A. L. (2021). Implementation and routinization of the ABCDE bundle: A mixed methods evaluation. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 40(6), 333-344. DeMellow, J. M., Kim, T. Y., Romano, P. S., Drake, C., & Balas, M. C. (2020). Factors associated with ABCDE bundle adherence in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: An observational design. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 60, 102873. https:// 10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102873 Devlin, J. W., Skrobik, Y., Gélinas, C., Needham, D. M., Slooter, A. J. C., Pandharipande, P. P., Watson, P. L., Weinhouse, G. L., Nunnally, M. E., Rochwerg, B., Balas, M. C., van den Boogaard, M., Bosma, K. J., Brummel, N. E., Chanques, G., Denehy, L., Drouot, X., Fraser, G. L., Harris, J. E., … Alhazzani, W. (2018). Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Critical Care Medicine, 46(9), e825-e873. https://doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003299 Dórea, F., & Revie, C. (2021). Data-driven surveillance: Effective collection, integration, and interpretation of data to support decision making. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.633977 Dziak, M. (2023). Theoretical framework. Salem Press Encyclopedia. http://salempress.com/ Edwards, M., Zito-Edwards, J., & Meyer, D. (2023). The emerging future of collegiate voice instruction: Updated SWOT analysis of current practice and implications for the next generation. Journal of Singing, 79(3), 331–338. https://doi:10.53830/BOAJ2091. Eller, S., Rudolph, J., Barwick, S., Janssens, S., & Bajaj, K. (2023). Leading change in practice: How “longitudinal prebriefing” nurtures and sustains in situ simulation programs. Advances in Simulation, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-023-00243-6 Fernandes, C. B. K., Guedes, C. M. V., Silva, de L., da F., Borges, C.L., & de Freitas, M. C. (2016). Nursing process based on Virginia Henderson applied for a working elderly. Journal of Nursing UFPE, 10(9), 3418–3425. https://doi. org/10.5205/reuol.9571-83638-1-SM1009201630 Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Whall, A. L. (Eds.). (1996). Conceptual models of nursing: Analysis and application. Appleton & Lange. https://umbrella.lib.umb.edu/permalink/01MA_UMB/1t99a9v/alma992879543503746 Flynn, G. A. H., Polivka, B., & Behr, J. H. (2018). Smartphone use by nurses in acute care settings. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 36(3), 120. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000400 Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top ten behavioral biases in project management: An overview. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 531-546. https://doi 10.1177/87569728211049046 Frade-Mera, M. J., Arias-Rivera, S., Zaragoza-García, I., Martí, J. D., Gallart, E., San José-Arribas, A., Velasco-Sanz, T. R., Blazquez-Martínez, E., & Raurell-Torredà, M. (2022). The impact of ABCDE bundle implementation on patient outcomes: A nationwide cohort study. Nursing in Critical Care. 27(6), 772–783. https://doi 10.1111/nicc.12740. Ginex, P. K., Dickman, E., Thomas, B., Tucker, S., Guo, J., & Gallagher-Ford, L. (2021). Evidence-based practice in oncology nursing: Oncology nursing society survey results. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 25(3), 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1188/21 Grevelding, P., Hrdlicka, H. C., Holland, S., Cullen, L., Meyer, A., Connors, C., Cooper, D., & Greco, A. (2022). Patient outcomes and lessons learned from treating patients with severe COVID-19 at a long-term acute care hospital: Single-center retrospective study. JMIR Rehabilitation & Assistive Technologies, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2196/31502 Guzman, W. Z., Gely, M. I., Crespo, K., Matos, J. R., Sanchez, N., & Guerrero, L. M. (2011). Transformation of a dental school’s clinical assessment system through Kotter’s eight‐step change process. Journal of Dental Education, 75(4), 485-495. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2011.75.4.tb05072.x Hagle, M., Dwyer, D., Gettrust, L., Lusk, D., Peterson, K., & Tennies, S. (2020). Development and implementation of a model for research, evidence-based practice, quality improvement, and innovation. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 35(2), 102-107. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000422 Hassey, A., Gerrett, D., & Wilson, A. (2001). A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 322, 1401. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7299.1401 Henderson, V. (1966). The nature of nursing: A definition and its implications for practice, research, and education. Macmillan. https://philpapers.org/rec/HENTNO-7 Hsieh, S. J., Otusanya, O., Gershengorn, H. B., Hope, A. A., Dayton, C., Levi, D., Garcia, M., Prince, D., Mills, M., Fein, D., Colman, S., & Gong, M. N. (2019). Staged implementation of awakening and breathing, coordination, delirium monitoring and management, and early mobilization bundle improves patient outcomes and reduces hospital costs. Critical Care Medicine, 47(7), 885–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.1849 Jefferson, K., Stanhope, K. K., Jones-Harrell, C., Vester, A., Tyano, E., & Hall, C. D. X. (2021). A scoping review of recommendations in the English language on conducting research with trauma-exposed populations since publication of the Belmont report; thematic review of existing recommendations on research with trauma-exposed populations. PLoS ONE, 16(7), e0254003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254003 Joseph, N., Lindblad, I., Zaker, S., Elfversson, S., Albinzon, M., Ødegård, Ø., Hantler, L., & Hellström, P. M. (2022). Automated data extraction of electronic medical records: Validity of data mining to construct research databases for eligibility in gastroenterological clinical trials. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences, 127, 8260. https://doi.org/10.48101/ujms.v127.8260 Knapp, H. (2018). Practical statistics for nursing using SPSS. Sage. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. https://hbr.org/1995/05/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail-2 Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press. Kumar, A., Rahman, M., Trivedi, A. N., Resnik, L., Gozalo, P., & Mor, V. (2018). Comparing post-acute rehabilitation use, length of stay, and outcomes experienced by Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with hip fracture in the United States: A secondary analysis of administrative data. PLoS Medicine, 15(6), e1002592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002592 Kumar, R., Zhang, W., Evans, E., Dams-O’Connor, K., & Thomas, K. (2022). Research: Characterization of older adults hospitalized with traumatic brain injury admitted to long-term acute care hospitals. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 37(2), 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000685 Kuo, Y.-L., & Chen, I.-J. (2019). Facilitating a change model in age-friendly hospital certification: Strategies and effects. PloS One, 14(4), e0213496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213496 Leedy, P. D., Ormrod, J. E., & Johnson, L. R. (2019). Practical research: Planning and design. Pearson. Leonelli, S. (2019). Data governance is key to interpretation: Reconceptualizing data in data science. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1), 10-1162. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.17405bb6 Li-Hui, H. O., Chang, S. C., Kevin, K. A. U., Shu-Ying, S. H. I. U., Huang, S. S., Ya-Jung, W. A. N. G., & Shiow-Luan, T. S. A. Y. (2021). The impact of organizational support on practice outcomes in nurse practitioners in Taiwan. The Journal of Nursing Research, 29(3), e148. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0000000000000425 Liu, K., Nakamura, K., Katsukawa, H., Nydahl, P., Ely, E. W., Kudchadkar, S. R., Takahashi, K., Elhadi, M., Gurjar, M., Leong, B. K., Chung, C. R., Balachandran, J., Inoue, S., Lefor, A. K., & Nishida, O. (2021). Implementation of the ABCDEF bundle for critically ill ICU patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-national 1-day point prevalence study. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.735860 Loberg, R. A., Smallheer, B. A., & Thompson, J. A. (2022). A quality improvement initiative to evaluate the effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle on sepsis outcomes. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 45(1), 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000387 Louzon, P., Jennings, H., Ali, M., & Kraisinger, M. (2017). Impact of pharmacist management of pain, agitation, and delirium in the intensive care unit through participation in multidisciplinary bundle rounds. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 74(4), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp150942 Marra, A., Ely, E., Pandharipande, P., & Patel, M. (2017). The ABCDEF Bundle in critical care. Critical Care Clinics, 33(2), 225-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2016.12.005 Marshall, J. C., Bosco, L., Adhikari, N. K., Connolly, B., Diaz, J. V., Dorman, T., Fowler, R. A., Meyfroidt, G., Nakagawa, S., Pelosi, P., Vincent, J. L., Vollman, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2017). What is an intensive care unit? A report of the Task Force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. Journal of Critical Care, 37, 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.07.015 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). (2019). Long term care hospital services. In Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy (pp. 281–300). https://www.medpac.gov/document/march-2019-report-to-the-congress-medicare-payment-policy/ Meng, J., & Berger, B. (2018). The impact of organizational culture and leadership performance on PR professionals’ job satisfaction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement and trust. Public Relations Review 45(1), 64−75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.11.002 Mira, J. C., Gentile, L. F., Mathias, B. J., Efron, P. A., Brakenridge, S. C., Mohr, A. M., Moore, F. A., & Moldawer, L. L. (2017). Sepsis pathophysiology, chronic critical illness, and persistent inflammation-immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome. Critical Care Medicine, 45(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002074 Moorman, S. (2015). Nursing from a Christian worldview. Journal of Christian Nursing, 32(1), E1–E7. https://doi-org/10.1097/CNJ.0000000000000143 Moraes, F. D. S., Marengo, L. L., Moura, M. D. G., Bergamaschi, C. D. C., de Sá Del Fiol, F., Lopes, L. C., Silva, M. T., & Barberato-Filho, S. (2022). ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles: A systematic review of the implementation process in intensive care units. Medicine, 101(25), e29499-e29499. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000029499 Mount, A., & Anderson, I. (2015). Driving change—not just a walk in the park: The role of the nurse champion in sustained change. Nurse Leader, 13(4), 36–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2015.06.003 Mukerji, G., Halperin, I., Segal, P., Sutton, L., Wong, R., Caplan, L., Whitham, D., & Gilmour, J. A. (2019). Beginning a diabetes quality improvement project. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 43(4), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2019.02.003 Murphy, D. R., Satterly, T., Rogith, D., Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2019). Barriers and facilitators impacting reliability of the electronic health record-facilitated total testing process. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 127, 102-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.055 National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Negro, A., Cabrini, L., Lembo, R., Monti, G., Dossi, M., Perduca, A., Colombo, S., Marazzi, M., Villa, G., Manara, D., Landoni, G., & Zangrillo, A. (2018). Early progressive mobilization in the intensive care unit without dedicated personnel. Canadian Journal of Critical Care Nursing, 29(3), 26–31. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Early+progressive+mobilization+in+the+intensive+care+unit+without…-a0639761824 Nicely, B., & DeLario, G. T. (2011). Virginia Henderson’s principles and practice of nursing applied to organ donation after brain death. Progress in Transplantation, 21(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/152692481102100110  Nordness, M. F., Hayhurst, C. J., & Pandharipande, P. (2021). Current perspectives on the assessment and management of pain in the intensive care unit. Journal of Pain Research, 14, 1733–1744. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S256406 Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(1), e000893. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893 Otusanya, O. T., Hsieh, S. J., Gong, M. N., & Gershengorn, H. B. (2022). Impact of ABCDE bundle implementation in the intensive care unit on specific patient costs. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 37(6), 833–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666211031813 Parasidis, E., Pike, E., & McGraw, D. (2019). A Belmont Report for health data. The New England Journal of Medicine, 380(16), 1493-1495. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30995370/ Petto, P. N., Tosh, S. L., & Wentzel, K. R. (2022). Magnet® empirical outcomes: Key strategies to improve sustainability. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 52(10), 505-506. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000001189 Pun, B. T., Balas, M. C., Barnes-Daly, M. A., Thompson, J. L., Aldrich, J. M., Barr, J., Byrum, D., Carson, S. S., Devlin, J. W., Engel, H. J., Esbrook, C. L., Hargett, K. D., Harmon, L., Hielsberg, C., Jackson, J. C., Kelly, T. L., Kumar, V., Millner, L., Morse, A., & Ely, E. W. (2019). Caring for critically ill patients with the ABCDEF bundle: Results of the ICU liberation collaborative in over 15,000 adults. Critical Care Medicine, 47(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003482 Ren, X. L., Li, J. H., Peng, C., Chen, H., Wang, H. X., Wei, X. L., & Cheng, Q. H. (2017). Effects of ABCDE bundle on hemodynamics in patients on mechanical ventilation: Medical science monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 23, 4650–4656. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.902872 Schallom, M., Tymkew, H., Vyers, K., Prentice, D., Sona, C., Norris, T., & Arroyo, C. (2020). Implementation of an interdisciplinary AACN early mobility protocol. Critical Care Nurse, 40(4), e7–e17. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2020632 Schober, P., Bossers, S. M., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Statistical significance versus clinical importance of observed effect sizes: What do p values and confidence intervals really represent? Anesthesia and Analgesia, 126(3), 1068–1072. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002798 Setiyanto, S., & Setiawan, I. (2022). Data science with Excel. International Journal of Computer and Information System, 3(3), 104-110. https://ijcis.net/index.php/ijcis/index Sinvani, L., Kozikowski, A., Patel, V., Mulvany, C., Talukder, D., Akerman, M., Pekmezaris, R., Wolf-Klein, G., & Hajizadeh, N. (2018). Nonadherence to geriatric-focused practices in older intensive care unit survivors. American Journal Of Critical Care, 27(5), 354-361. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2018363 Sorensen, T. D., Pestka, D., Sorge, L. A., Wallace, M. L., & Schommer, J. (2016). A qualitative evaluation of medication management services in six Minnesota health systems: American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 73(5), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp150212 Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373-374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000649 Trogrlić, Z., van der Jagt, M., Lingsma, H., Gommers, D., Ponssen, H., & Schoonderbeek, J. (2019). Improved guideline adherence and reduced brain dysfunction after a multicenter multifaceted implementation of ICU delirium guidelines in 3,930 patients. Critical Care Medicine, 47(3), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003596 van den Boogaard, M., Wassenaar, A., van Haren, F. M. P., Slooter, A. J. C., Jorens, P. G., van der Jagt, M., Simons, K. S., Egerod, I., Burry, L. D., Beishuizen, A., Pickkers, P., & Devlin, J. W. (2020). Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients: A multinational cohort study. Australian Critical Care, 33(5), 420–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2019.12.002 van Melle, M. A., Zwart, D. L. M., Poldervaart, J. M., Verkerk, O. J., Langelaan, M., van Stel, H. F., & de Wit, N. J. (2018). Validity and reliability of a medical record review method identifying transitional patient safety incidents in merged primary and secondary care patients’ records. BMJ, 8(8), e018576.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018576 Watt, J., Tricco, A. C., Straus, S., Veroniki, A. A., Naglie, G., & Drucker, A. M. (2019). Research techniques made simple: Network meta-analysis. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 139(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2018.10.028  Wu, R. C., Tran, K., Lo, V., O, L. K. J., Morra, D., Quan, S. D., & Perrier, L. (2012). Effects of clinical communication interventions in hospitals: A systematic review of information and communication technology adoptions for improved communication between clinicians. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81(11), 723–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.05.014 Zhang, S., Han, Y., Xiao, Q., Li, H., & Wu, Y. (2021). Effectiveness of bundle interventions on ICU delirium: A meta-analysis. Critical Care Medicine, 49(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004773 Appendix A SWOT Analysis Figure 1SWOT Analysis for Quality Improvement Project Appendix B Literature Evaluation Table Table 3Primary Quantitative Research – Intervention APA Reference (Include the GCU permalink or working link used to access the article.) Research Questions/ Hypothesis, and Purpose/Aim of Study Type of Primary Research Design Research Methodology Interpretation of Data Outcomes/Key Findings Limitations of Study and Biases Recommendations for Future Research Explanation of How the Article Supports Your Proposed Intervention Hsieh, S. J., Otusanya, O., Gershengorn, H. B., Hope, A. A., Dayton, C., Levi, D., Garcia, M., Prince, D., Mills, M., Fein, D., Colman, S., & Gong, M. N. (2019). Staged implementation of awakening and breathing, coordination, delirium monitoring and management, and early mobilization bundle improves patient outcomes and reduces hospital costs. Critical Care Medicine, 47(7), 885–893. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000003765 Research question: Will the implementation of the ABCDE bundle decrease LOS, and mechanical ventilation? Hypothesis: The study hypothesizes that the implementation of early mobilization on a foundation of targeted sedation practices and routine delirium monitoring would improve clinical outcomes such as mechanical ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay and cost. Purpose: The authors sought to determine the impact of adding early mobilization, coordination of components to breathing trial and awakening and delirium in the context of the staged implementation of the ABCDE bundle in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients, Prospective cohort study The study included two medical ICUs within Montefiore Healthcare Center (Bronx, New York). The cohort consisted of all adult mechanical ventilated patients divided into two groups, a complete bundle staffed by medical residents and a partial bundle staffed by physician assistants. Participants were in the ICU for greater than 24hrs, the study period from July 2011 – June 2014, 1,855 were admitted to the full, and 819 underwent partial bundle elements. The complete bundle had younger patients, minor minorities, more comorbidities, higher severity of illness, and fewer lives at home before hospitalization. The study used unadjusted clinical outcomes and periods using descriptive statistics, non-parametric, and a multivariable regression model using the difference-in-difference (DiD) approach. Data were extracted from electronic medical records using healthcare surveillance software. The collected data were collected for 12 months after protocol implementation. The study was further divided into four phases for data collection. Phase one was collected on all ICU patients for 24 hrs. or more for two months before and two months after implementation. In phase two, data were collected monthly on 20 randomly selected patients in the ICU for three days or more for two months before and 12 months after implementation. The EHR and descriptive statistics could both be used in the DPI project. Duration of MV and ICU LOS significantly changed in the full bundle ICU but not in the partial bundle ICU across three periods ICU LOS was significantly shorter across all three periods in the full versus partial bundle ICU (p < 0.001) The primary outcome of interest was the hospital length of stay (LOS). Early mobilization and coordination (EC) portrayed improvement of patients in ICU by 30%. Implementation of full (B-AD-EC) vs (B-AD) resulted to a decrease in MV duration. The implementation of ABCDE bundle reduced total ICU and hospital cost by 24.2% and 30.2% respectively. The study experienced the challenges of unmeasured changes which could have affected the results. The study also was conducted in a single medical center hence limiting generalizability. The study also may have experienced cross-contamination of practices between two ICUs. The study was unable to compare costs between two seasonal periods due to cost-to-charge ratios changes hence study used smaller cohort for cost analyses. The study did not collect all the data in the partial bundle ICU for comparison The study identified the need for further research to include an assessment of patient-centered outcomes such as short and long-term disability and readmission rate and cost analysis identifying the benefit of the ABCDE bundle. Since this study, the (F) family has been included. Future studies must include the F and its impact on LOS and clinical outcomes. This article assessed the impact of implementing complete versus partial ABCDE bundle elements on mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, intensive care Unit (ICU)and hospital length of stay (LOS), and cost. The study demonstrates that the ABCDE bundle can be successfully early mobilization led to substantial reductions in MV duration, LOS, and hospital cost, liberated patients from restraints, and reduced iatrogenic complications. Most importantly identified that the entire bundle is more impactful than individual elements Schallom, M., Tymkew, H., Vyers, K., Prentice, D., Sona, C., Norris, T., & Arroyo, C. (2020). Implementation of an interdisciplinary AACN early mobility protocol. Critical Care Nurse, 40(4), e7–e17. https://doi-org. /10.4037/ccn2020632 Research question: how does increased mobility within the intensive care unit essential for achievement of ABCDEF bundle as an interdisciplinary protocol for specialized care in intensive care units? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that in critical care units, there should be mobility programs as an ABCDEF bundle to ensure quality care delivery through reduction of hospital stays, increasing patient’s mobility and reducing delirium. Purpose: The purpose of this quality improvement project is to examine the impact of an interdisciplinary mobility protocol in specialty intensive care units (ICU’s). The study is a quality improvement project using the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses mobility protocol The quality improvement (QI) project was conducted at a 1200-bed, university-affiliated level I trauma medical center in the Midwest with 132 ICU beds at project initiation. The study used a preintervention-postintervention design using a staggered approach across different units. The study used evidence-based tools such as the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) early progressive mobility protocol, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the ICU Mobility Scale (IMS). All data were downloaded from REDCap into IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22, using descriptive statistics; descriptive statistics were calculated mean SD for continuous variables – dichotomous, nominal, and ordinal. The EHR was the main instrument used in this study that can also be used in this DPI project along with RASS , CAM-ICU ICU LOS decreased none significantly overall and decreased significantly in the ICUs without dedicated physical therapists (PT) at baseline. The units with dedicated PTs, had a mean (SD) decrease in LOS of more than 1 day, from 6.26 (6.05) to 5.00 (5.15) (p = .01). The study observed decreased in ICU LOS in both phases and a non-significant decrease in hospital LOS in phase two. Introduction of a standardized early mobility protocol increased the number of patients achieving ambulation and resulted in additional improved outcomes, including decreased delirium days and decreased ICU and hospital LOS. This study is not without limitations. The study design, a QI initiative, retrospective data can result in incomplete data. The data was extracted from the EMR were dependent on documentation it is contingent on accurate data entry and retrieval which may limit the final results due to inaccurate data. Another limitation is fidelity to the intervention implementation More support is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of full bundle implementation. This study adds great significance to the DPI project as it identifies decreased length of stay in both phases of the study through the implementation of a nurse-driven early mobility Frade-Mera, M. J., Arias-Rivera, S., Zaragoza-García, I., Martí, J. D., Gallart, E., San José-Arribas, A., Velasco-Sanz, T. R., Blazquez-Martínez, E., & Raurell-Torredà, M. (2022). The impact of ABCDE bundle implementation on patient outcomes: A nationwide cohort study. Nursing in Critical Care, 27(6), 772-783. https://doi-org. /10.1111/nicc.12740 Research question: what is the role of ABCDE bundle as an evidence-based practice in reducing the risks of immobility, delirium and sedation for intensive care unit patients? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDE bundle is essential evidence-based practice in reduction of risks related to immobility, sedation and delirium for the intensive care unit patients thus improving the clinical experience for the patients Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between patient outcomes (pain level, level of cooperation, patient days with delirium, patient days with physical restraint, level of mobility, drug levels of analgesia, sedatives, muscle relaxants, and antipsychotics, need for re-intubation or tracheostomy, ICU length of stay in days, IMV days, bed rest days, ICU mortality, and development of ICU acquired muscle weakness (ICUAW)) and compliance with bundle components ABC (analgosedation algorithms), D (delirium prevention and management protocol), and E (early mobilization protocol). A prospective,observational, multicenter cohort study The study included 605 patients from 80 ICUs in Spain in different Spanish multicenter ICUs receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48hrs. Patients’ data were collected from day three of the ICU stay until extubation. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency and percentage, using Fisher or Chi-squared test for between-group comparisons. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and percentile, as 25 to 75 or 10 to 90 percentile ranges, depending on the distribution, which was analyzed with the Kolmogorov Smirnov test for large sample sizes (n ≥ 30) or the Shapiro-Wilk test for small samples (n < 30). Groups were compared using the student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics. The instruments used in this study can also be used in this DPI project, except the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the EHR for data collection. Patients had shorter stays in ICUs with bundle protocols and fewer days of IMV in ICUs with delirium and mobilization bundle components (p = 0.006 and p = 0.03, Tertiary outcomes, ICU length of stay in days was decreased. The intended Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) a valid tool of ABCDE bundle was not implemented due to use of a protocol for analgosedation algorithms. Another limitation, decrease use of the delirium scale due to its subjectively o of the observer. The spontaneous breathing trial and spontaneous awakening trial was replaced with the analgosedation protocol. because the great majority were recorded in patients in ICUs implementing protocols with analgosedation algorithms. very low implementation of delirium scales; did not analyze the use of SAT or SBT as a strategy in bundle components ABC. In this study the authors identified the need of a nurse-guided algorithm to minimize sedation and incorporating physiotherapist in ICU teams to make to initiate early mobility. This study adds merit to the DPI project as it identifies that the ABDCE bundle decreases LOS in ICU when all elements are implemented. This study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the PICOT as it identifies that using bundle components in patients results in a shorter ICU LOS. In addition, the bundle demonstrates fewer invasive mechanical ventilation days, decreased use of analgesia, and a change in sedation strategies, with decreased use of benzodiazepines and increased use of dexmedetomidine and propofol- components of the ABCDEF bundle. Collinsworth, A., Priest, E., & Masica, A. (2020). Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of the ABCDE Bundle: Impact of Bundle Adherence on Inpatient and 1-Year Mortality and Costs of Care. Critical Care Medicine, 48(12), 1752-1759. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004609 Research Question: what is the role of the ABCDE bundle in improvement of the short-term and long-term care patients in the intensive care units? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDE bundle is related to improvement of the cost and quality of care delivered to ICU unit patients. Additionally if reduced the overall cost of care and mortality rates for patients under the UCI units. Purpose: The research aim to determine the impact of ABCDE processes on inpatient mortality, LOS, discharge status, and direct costs of care as a basis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the bundle adherence. This is a prospective study The study included 2,953 patients. Patients were recruited from a large, urban tertiary referral center and five community hospitals. ICUs included medical/surgical, trauma, neurologic, and cardiac care units from July 2013 to June 2015; of those 18 years old and older with an ICU admission greater than 24hrs, mechanically ventilated greater than 24 hrs. and less than 14 days were included. Outcomes data were collected from the EHR and administrative databases. The study compared differences in continuous variables and outcomes that did not violate normality assumptions with independent t-tests and differences in categorical variables and outcomes with chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Instruments in this study can also be used in the DPI project. Hospital LOS and direct costs were significantly higher in patients with bundle adherence greater than or equal to 60%, after risk adjustment <60% compliance vs > 60% compliance, 9.9(7.0) vs 12.3 (6.8) p<0.001 The study highlighted patients with high bundle compliance >60% had decrease mortality and decrease in LOS The limitations in this study were the study design. The severity of illness of each patient was not taken into consideration Further research is needed to obtain estimates of the bundle effect and its cost over a longer period of time. This study continues to add to the growing research that the ABCDE bundle compliance decreases mortality, decrease cost and decrease LOS. Pun, B. T., Balas, M. C., Barnes-Daly, M. A., Thompson, J. L., Aldrich, J. M., Barr, J., Byrum, D., Carson, S. S., Devlin, J. W., Engel, H. J., Esbrook, C. L., Hargett, K. D., Harmon, L., Hielsberg, C., Jackson, J. C., Kelly, T. L., Kumar, V., Millner, L., Morse, A., … Ely, E. W. (2019). Caring for critically ill patients with the ABCDEF bundle: Results of the ICU liberation collaborative in Over 15,000 adults. Critical Care Medicine, 47(1), 3–14. https://doi-org. /10.1097/CCM.0000000000003482 Research question: what is the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and having patient-centric results under the critical care units? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesize that the ABCDEF bundle would be essential for improving the quality of care for the patients under the critical care units. They challenged the old approaches like reduced access to family, sensation and immobilization of patients in critical care units. Purpose: The study aim at evaluating the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient, symptom and healthcare system related outcomes. The study hypothesized that complete and dose-related (i.e., proportional) performance of the ABCDEF bundle would be associated with improved clinical outcomes across these three domains Prospective cohort study from national quality improvement collaborative The study included 15226 adult patients on and off mechanical ventilation admitted to a participating medical, surgical, cardiac, or neurology ICU. The study included a total of 20 months of data collected per site. Data included six months of retrospectively collected data from (January 2015−June 2015) and 14 months of prospectively collected data (January 2016–March 2017) from 68 academics, community, and Veterans Administration ICUs from 29 states and Puerto Rico. Data was collected using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure, web-based application for validated data entry, transmission, and storage. During the retrospective periods, five patients’ data were entered on those admitted to the ICU each month for 30 baseline patients per site. Throughout the prospective period, data was collected in the first 15 months. Data was collected for a maximum of seven ICU days. The study used Cox proportional hazards models with time-varying covariates for these outcomes. The study used R Project for Statistical Computing software version 3.4 for all analyses. The study used a specific data collection instrument. This instrument cannot be used in the DPI project. There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). Complete ABCDE bundle performance demonstrated a reduction in mortality rate within 7 days, mechanical ventilation, delirium and physical restraint use. Patients also demonstrated an increased dose response relationship between higher proportion bundle performances. Frequent pain was reported with increased bundle performance. The study did not use a randomized study design, nor did it have access to concurrent control. ICU liberation collaborative included numerous ICU types as part of a larger effort to understand the impact of the ABCDE bundle on various types of critically ill patients while understanding the implementation strategies unique to each setting. The patient-level outcomes are not wholly independent of one another and are assessed within a short time frame during which patients did not experience those outcomes. The ICU liberation collaborative study lacked sufficient funds to support data accuracy Auditing. Cohort analysis is from patient data collected within a larger QI project that collected a minimum and de-identified dataset, limiting the study’s ability to answer some questions. Physicians need to become familiarize with ABCDE bundle performance to enhance patients’ dose adherence to the critically ill adults in ICU. Physicians need to collaborate with other professionals in health sector and attend to ICU cases with open minded ready to learn from others. This large-scale study adds to the growing evidence supporting the ABCDEF bundle. The art outlined the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. Therefore, it is clear that ABCDEF bundle performance portrays significant clinical improvements in patient survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma and delirium, restraint-free care, ICU re-admissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition. Table 4Additional Primary and Secondary Quantitative Research APA Reference (Include the GCU permalink or working link used to access the article.) Research Questions/ Hypothesis, and Purpose/Aim of Study Type of Primary or Secondary Research Design Research Methodology Interpretation of Data (State p-value: acceptable range is p= 0.000 to p= 0.05) Outcomes/Key Findings (Succinctly states all study results applicable to the DPI Project.) Limitations of Study and Biases Recommendations for Future Research Explanation of How the Article Supports Your Proposed DPI Project Barnes-Daly, M. A., Phillips, G., & Ely, E. W. (2017). Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: Implementing PAD guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients. Critical Care Medicine, 45(2), 171–178. https://doi-org. /10.1097/CCM.0000000000002149 Research question: what is the relationship between implementation of the ABCDEF bundle and improvement in patient’s outcomes? Including coma and delirium free days. Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that application of Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Choice of drugs, Delirium monitoring and management, Early mobility, and Family engagement bundle was essential for improvement of care and services delivered to the patients thus reducing survival chances of ICU patients. Purpose: The aim was to study the relationship between ABCDEF bundle compliance and outcomes including hospital survival and delirium-free and coma-free days A prospective cohort quality improvement initiative involving ICU patients. This study occurred in seven community hospitals within California’s Sutter Health System in ICUs ranging from six to 16 beds. The population consisted of medical and surgical ICU patients, ventilated and non-ventilated, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. The study enrolled 6, 6064 patients. The ABCDEF bundle was implemented on each patient every day. The study was designed to utilize an interprofessional team (IPT) model. The team consisted of a dedicated registered nurse (RN), an administrative RN, a pharmacist, a physical therapist, a respiratory care practitioner, and an ICU physician. Data were collected each day by the IPT RN in each ICU during daily rounds and entered into an electronic data collection tool (MIDAS; Kitware, Clifton Park, NY). The data was presented in monthly dashboards that tracked total and partial bundle compliance and patient outcome data. Analyses addressed the relationship between bundle compliance (independent variable) versus hospital survival and delirium-free and coma-free days (DFCFDs) (two dependent/outcome variables). The two outcomes were regressed on each independent variable (total and partial compliance). All analyses were run using Stata 14.1. The EHR was the instrument used in this study, along with a facility dashboard. While the QI project too can abstract data from the EHR, a dashboard cannot. For every 10% increase in total bundle compliance, patients had a 7% higher odds of hospital survival (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.11; p < 0.001). Likewise, for every 10% increase in partial bundle compliance, patients had a 15% higher hospital survival (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09–1.22; p < 0.001). These results were even more striking (12% and 23% higher odds of survival per 10% increase in bundle compliance, respectively, p < 0.001) in a sensitivity analysis removing ICU patients identified as receiving palliative care. Patients experienced more days alive and free of delirium and coma with both total bundle compliance (incident rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.04; p = 0.004) and partial bundle compliance (Incident rate ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09–1.22; p < 0.001). The evidence-based ABCDEF bundle was successfully implemented in seven community hospital ICUs using an interprofessional team model to operationalize the Pain, Agitation, and Delirium guidelines. Higher bundle compliance was independently associated with improved survival and more days free of delirium and coma after adjusting for age, severity of illness, and presence of mechanical ventilation. The authors made note of the QI project limitation, noting the project lacked randomization, or controlled trials. There was a potential risk for data integrity by the IPT nurse as one of the primary investigators. The bundle was applied to patients receiving palliative care, this may have skewed the results. There was a lack of physician buy-in and non-acceptance of patient and family to participation. The authors noted more advanced study designs should consider stepped-wedge approach that would add value to gain an understanding of the relationship among the bundle elements, compliance, and clinical outcomes. This large-scale study  demonstrated the value of implementing the PAD guidelines using a bundle of evidence-based steps through interprofessional teamwork. The study highlighted if not all bundle elements are implemented some can make a significant impact on patient outcomes. Collinsworth, A. W., Brown, R., Cole, L., Jungeblut, C., Kouznetsova, M., Qiu, T., Richter, K. M., Smith, S., & Masica, A. L. (2021). Implementation and routinization of the ABCDE bundle: A mixed methods evaluation. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 40(6), 333–344. https://doi-org. /10.1097/DCC.0000000000000495 Research question: what is the role of ABCDEF bundle in the reductions in delirium incidence and improved patient outcomes? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that adoption of the right practices when implementing the ABCDEF bundle would leader to promotion of better patient’s care and reducing the occurrence of delirium among the critically ill patients. Purpose: The objective of this mixed methods study was to determine how to facilitate ABCDE bundle adoption by examining the impact of two different implementation strategies on bundle adherence rates via basic and enhanced strategies and assessing clinicians’ perceptions of the bundle and implementation efforts. This mixed methods study This study included patients treated in 12 ICUs of eight Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWH) hospitals, including medical/surgical, trauma, neurological, and cardiac care units. A total of 84 nurses, physicians, and therapists participated in interviews and a survey to assess bundle implementation—two approaches, basic and enhanced. The basic strategy included electronic health record (EHR) modification, whereas the enhanced strategy included EHR modification plus additional bundle training, clinical champions, and staff engagement. A convenience sample was obtained to ensure varied sample schedules were on different days and times encompassing nursing, respiratory therapist, physical therapy managers, physician’s champions, and leaders were contacted via email for scheduled interviews. Interviews and surveys were the main instruments for each intervention group using the Microsoft Assess database using audio recording. Two researchers analyzed interview responses using a shared codebook. To ensure consistency in coding, both researchers coded three of the same interviews and compared coding schemes to ensure they interpreted and consistently applied the codes. This study uses a mixed method approach, qualitative and quantitative methods. The DPI project is quantitative. THE EHR is an instrument used in this project and can also be used in the DPI project. The results demonstrated the effect of basic vs enhanced strategy for bundle adherence ICU LOS estimate 0.02 95% CI (0.01-0.02) (p <0.001) Contrary to the hypothesis, the ICUs in the basic intervention group achieved higher levels of bundle adherence than ICUs in the enhanced intervention group and had the greatest change from pre-period to post-period. Although the bundle implementation process in both interventions showed improvement in bundle adherence . The authors noted data collection was time consuming. The study acquired data through the EHR hence limited to evaluating some elements such as pain and sedation Physicians’ response on bundle perception may be biased. Limitations were noted in this study—first leadership. Leadership in the basic intervention group learned about the enhanced intervention through the system-wide critical care council. This unintended exposure resulted in contamination, which made it difficult to determine the impact of the EHR modification alone on bundle implementation for ICUs in the basic intervention group. Second, this study was based on the change model chosen, Rodger’s Diffusion of Innovation theory. This change theory may have only elicited factors about implementing and adopting the bundle that was congruent with the models. Third, the authors note the differences among the ICUs that may have influenced adoption. Fourth, the convenience sample may have resulted in bias by limiting a complete representative sample of ICU staff. Other limitations included sample size, recall bias, and hesitance of respondents to reveal their true feelings about bundle implementation. Data on bundle adherence were based on what was documented in the EHR, which may not reflect actual practice. The study highlights that applying the ABCDE bundle is feasible in different healthcare settings outside the ICU. The EHR is a valuable tool in identifying bundle documentation and compliance. The ABCDE bundle is effective in reducing the length of stay. It scores that adequately implementing ABCDE bundles improves nursing care and patient outcomes. Balas, M. C., Tan, A., Pun, B. T., Ely, E. W., Carson, S. S., Mion, L., Barnes-Daly, M. A., & Vasilevskis, E. E. (2022) Effects of a national quality improvement collaborative on ABCDEF bundle implementation. American Journal of Critical Care, 31(1), 54–64. https://doi-org. /10.4037/ajcc2022768 Research question: how does the participation of ABCDEF bundle performance become effective in improvement of care delivered to patients? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDEF bundle was significant in improving the results of intensive care unit administration and general patient’s recovery. Although the impacts of the ABCDEF bundle are small, they play and essential part in ensuring better care advocating Purpose: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of ICU Liberation Collaborative participation on ABCDEF bundle performance and explore whether bundle performance differed among participating ICUs at the end of the quality improvement collaborative (QIC). Observational study In this study, data was collected over 20 months. The data consisted of ABCDEF bundle performance data. The study included six months of baseline (pre-implementation) data from January 2015 through June 2015 and 14 months of data collected prospectively during the QIC from January 2016 through February 2017. The study consisted of 15 226 critically ill adults admitted to the 68 academic, community, and Veterans Affairs ICUs participating in the SCCM ICU Liberation Collaborative at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Data were manually abstracted data from eligible patients’ medical records (either electronic or paper) at their institutions. The data were then entered into a Research Electronic Data Capture database, a secure web-based application for validated data entry, transmission, and storage. Data were collected for the first five patients (baseline period) or the first 15 patients (implementation period) consecutively admitted to the ICU each month. Performance data were collected for each qualifying patient for a maximum of seven ICU days or until the patient was transferred out of the ICU, was designated as having non-ICU status, or died. THE EHR was the main instrument used in this study and can also serve as a valuable instrument to the DPI project. Complete bundle performance increased by 2 percentage points (SE, 0.9; p = .06) immediately after collaborative Initiation. Each subsequent month was associated with an increase of 0.6 percentage points (SE, 0.2; p = .04). Performance rates increased significantly immediately after initiation for pain assessment (7.6% [SE, 2.0%], p = .002), sedation assessment (9.1% [SE, 3.7%], p= .02), and family engagement (7.8% [SE, 3%], p= .02) and then increased monthly at the same speed as the trend in the baseline period. Conclusion: These studies showed that the ABCDEF Bundle is associated with lower ICU and hospital mortality The first limitation is that the study involved observational studies, and residual confounding cannot be omitted as an explanation for the observed changes in bundle performance. Secondly, conclusions cannot be made on long-term sustainability despite ICUs demonstrating improvements during a 20-month period. Organizations need to develops strategic plans on how to increase compliance on bundle interventions for sedations, mechanical ventilation weaning and mobility practices. This study adds to the growing literature supporting the ABCDE bundle and its effects on patient outcomes, mortality rates. Negro, A., Cabrini, L., Lembo, R., Monti, G., Dossi, M., Perduca, A., Colombo,S., Marazzi, M., Villa,G., Manara, D., Landoni, G., & Zangrillo, A. (2018). Early progressive mobilization in the intensive care unit without dedicated personnel. Canadian Journal of Critical Care Nursing, 29(3), 26–31. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=132043106&site=eds-live&scope=site Research question: what is the feasibility and safety of an early progressive mobilization protocol implemented without dedicated Personnel, as part of the ABCDE bundle? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that implementation of a progressive and early mobilization using the ABCDEF bundle is essential to promote better healthcare results for the patients under the intensive care units. Additionally, the ABCDEF bundle is essential for meeting both short-term and long-term needs of the patient. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility (meaning the capability of performing advanced mobilization) and safety (meaning the capability of avoiding adverse events during mobilization) of an early progressive mobilization protocol, focusing on the three most advanced steps (dangling, out of bed and walking) implemented without additional dedicated Personnel, as part of the ABCDE bundle. This is a descriptive observational study took place in a general ICU The study enrolled 482 participants in an eight-bed ICU over one year. Patients were admitted to the ICU, and 94 were mobilized. Data was collected from March 2015 to March 2016 using the electronic health record. Categorical data were presented as absolute numbers and percentages and compared by a two-tailed x2 test or Fisher’s exact test when appropriate—using the Mann-Whitney U test or t-test if data were normally distributed. Two-sided significance tests were used throughout. Patients were divided into two groups: non-mobilized patients 388 and mobilized patients 94. All statistical analyses were performed with the STATA software. The EHR, the main instrument used in the article, can be duplicated in the DPI project. Mobilized patients had longer ICU and hospital length p < 0.001 The study found that there was a significant increase over time of patients being mobilized while receiving mechanical ventilation. Mobilized patients had longer ICU and hospital length of stay and a better ICU survival rate. The study is noted limitations. The study was not generalized. It is not known if there were any adverse effects during mobilization. The authors noted a lack of control or randomization. The study did not barriers or contraindications to mobilization. The study notes further research is required to evaluate the efficacy and generalizability of our strategy and the additional nurse-workload. This study adds to the current growing body of research that supports the implementation of the ABCDEF bundle as all components were utilized with a special attention to early mobility – it supports its use as feasible, safe with the absence of PT while results demonstrated a decrease length of stay DeMellow, J. M., Kim, T. Y., Romano, P. S., Drake, C., & Balas, M. C. (2020). Factors associated with ABCDE bundle adherence in critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation: An observational design. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 60, 02873. https://doi-org. /10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102873 Research question: is there a relationship between the ABCDEF bundle compliance and better healthcare results for patients including coma and delirium free days in community hospitals? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDEF bundle was significant in reducing coma, delirium and overall survival rates for critical care patients in the community healthcare facilities. Purpose: The study aims at identifying factors associated with ABCDEF bundle adherence in critically ill patients during the first 96 hours of ventilation. This is an observational study This study included data from 15 ICUs in seven community hospitals between August 1, 2016, and January 31, 2017, in an extensive western United States health system. The study included 977 adult patients on mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours admitted to an intensive care unit over six months. There were variations in ICU size, bed type, and study location. The sample included adult patients 18 years old and older. Patients with comfort care and comatose were excluded. Patient-level data were retrieved from a data warehouse for administrative data and the Cerner EHR system for bundle documentation and order entry. Data in this study were stored in a secured data repository at the health system. The study was conducted using all the statistical analyses using the SAS University Edition 9 platform software. The study used dependent and independent variables. Logistic regression analysis was used for individual bundle element adherence scores, categorized into complete (100%) vs. partial. The instruments used in this study could be implemented in the DPI project. ABCDEF bundle adherence was higher in patients on mechanical ventilation for less than 48 hours (p=0.01), who received continuous sedation for less than 24 hours (p < 0.001), admitted from skilled nursing facilities (p<0.05), And over the course of the six-month study period (p < 0.01). Bundle adherence was significantly lower for Hispanic patients (p < 0.01). The observational results from the data identified that modifiable factors improved team’s performance of the ABCDEF bundle in critically ill patients in need of mechanical ventilation. The study had limitations. The study was restricted to EHR clinical data available hence managed to only evaluate assessment for pain, sedation, delirium, and mobility elements. The study did not use analgesic infusions as sedation to determine duration of sedation and adherence of awakening trials The study was limited to the examination of the early 96hours on MV adherence to bundle by the care unit. The study identified barriers in assessing pain, delirium and mobility. The study notes more education is needed to treat patients requiring sedation to reduce sedatives in order to improve bundle adherence as well as discovering ways to implement delirium assessments in a more diverse population. This study supports the DPI project since the study identifies the factors associated with ABCDEF bundle adherence in critically ill patients during the first 96 hours of ventilation. The study supports the results that modifiable factors improve the team’s performance of the ABCDE bundle in critically ill patients in mechanical ventilation. Loberg, R. A., Smallheer, B. A., & Thompson, J. A. (2022). A quality improvement initiative to evaluate the effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle on Sepsis outcomes. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 45(1), 42–53. https://doi-org. /10.1097/CNQ.0000000000000387 Research question: what is the role of compliance with the ABCDEF bundle in achievement of better clinical outcomes? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that critical care patients would receive higher quality and satisfactory care thus reducing the long-term negative impacts of ICU survivors. Purpose: The study aims to determine how quality improvement implementing the ABCDEF bundle can improve sepsis outcomes. Quality Improvement study This study was conducted in a 609-bed Midwest metropolitan hospital, the medical respiratory intensive care unit, and the surgical intensive care unit. The study used a pre/post-test design. The study used a convenience sample of all patients with sepsis admitted over three months. Data were collected between January 2019 and March 2019, and post implementation was collected from October 2019 to December 2019. The existing electronic health record (EHR) and the sedation and analgesia order set for patients requiring mechanical ventilation were reviewed and determined to support the needed documentation for pain and delirium. Descriptive statistics, mean (SD) or n (%), and comparative statistical test results for all study outcomes. Ventilator days and ICU and hospital LOS were compared between groups using an independent-sample t-test. The EHR served as the main instrument used in this study that can be used in the DPI project. The ABCDEF bundle elements improved clinical outcomes. A significant improvement was seen in the completion of spontaneous awakening and breathing trials (p= .002), delirium assessment (p = .041), and early mobility (p = .000), which was associated with a reduction in mortality and 30-day readmission rates. There was a 0.5-day reduction in overall ICU LOS (p = .475) Overall hospital LOS increased by 1.1 day, but this was not significant (p = .414) The study results indicated overall implementation of ABCDEF bundle in the setting resulted to enhanced care delivery and improved clinical outcomes. The QI initiative was limited to this single center organization. The authors made note severity of illness was not taken into account. The study lacked randomization, controlled trial, rather used a convenience sample. Lower than desired rate with bundle elements was experienced The intervention was not designed as randomized controlled study but rather utilized as convenient sampling. There is need to provide nursing care education to healthcare workers to implement the ABCDEF bundle since its implementation has a direct impact on enhancing care giving and clinical outcomes. This study may show greater significance on multicenter vs one while expanding to a larger patient demographic. The article is relevant to the DPI project since it outlines the guidelines on how the ABCDEF bundle can be applied in nursing to improve clinical outcomes. The study demonstrated that bundle elements decreased ICU LOS. Otusanya, O. T., Hsieh, S. J., Gong, M. N., & Gershengorn, H. B. (2022). Impact of ABCDE bundle implementation in the intensive care unit on specific patient costs. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 37(6), 833-841. https://doi-org. /10.1177/08850666211031813 Research question: what is the impact of partially implementing the ABCDEF bundle on some patients in ICU and implementing it fully? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that patients receiving the ABCDEF bundle fully would have more benefits including lowering laboratory costs, therapy costs compared to those taking it partially. Therefore, advocating for the application of ABCDEF bundle fully. Purpose: The study objective is to measure the impact of full versus partial ABCDE bundle implementation on specific cost centers and related resource utilization. Retrospective cohort study This quality improvement study was conducted in two medical ICUs in Montefiore Health Systems, the medical ICU at two academic tertiary care hospitals within the Montefiore Health System in the Bronx, NY. The study compared two time periods, the B-AD from January 1, 2013-June 30, 2013, and the B-AD-CE from July 1, 2013, to December 31, 2013. They included 472 mechanically ventilated patients. The cohort was divided into the intervention ICU group, 259, and the comparison group, 226. Clinical data were obtained from health care surveillance software (Clinical Looking Glass; Emerging Health Information Technology, Yonkers, NY) and included information on demographics (age, self-reported race, and ethnicity, gender, residence prior to hospitalization) Baseline characteristics and cost per cost center were compared between ICUs (including data from both periods) using Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. The study further used the difference-in-difference analysis to identify significant changes in outcomes associated with the completed ABCDE bundle. STATA 15 and Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) was used for all analyses. The EHR instrument used in this study can be used in the DPI project. The results identified LOS (13.9 [8.0-23.6] vs 13.6 [7.9-21.8] days, p = 0.64) were similar in both ICUs, but ICU LOS was shorter in the intervention ICU (6.1 [3.8-10.5] vs 7.2 [4.4-12.8] days, p = 0.013). There was a relationship between ABCDE bundle implementation and the cost. Relative to the comparison ICU, implementation of the entire bundle in the intervention resulted to a decrease of 27.3%in total hospital laboratory cost. Total hospital resource use resource use decreased in the intervention ICU. The limitations in this study are it design, retrospective, at a single center organization of two ICUs in one health system. The study did not include A- assessment of pain nor did it include F- family involvement. Lastly, the authors could not evaluate the impact of costs in a larger cohort more than one year. The study notes the need for additional studies identifying how total hospital cost and ICU cost are impacted by the ABCDE bundle. The article supports the DPI project as it focuses on how fully implementation of ABCDE bundle significantly reduces hospital laboratory costs decreases LOS. van den Boogaard, M., Wassenaar, A., van Haren, F. M. P., Slooter, A. J. C., Jorens, P. G., van der Jagt, M., Simons, K. S., Egerod, I., Burry, L. D., Beishuizen, A., Pickkers, P., & Devlin, J. W. (2020). Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients: A multinational cohort study. Australian Critical Care, 33(5), 420–425. https://doi-org. /10.1016/j.aucc.2019.12.002 Research Question: what is the relationship between the level of sedation and occurrence of delirium for critically ill patients if the ICDSC or CAM-ICU assessment methods were used? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesize that the level of sedation is likely to impact on the delirium screening results when either the ICDSC or CAM-ICU methods were used. Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation, as quantified by a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score, and a positive delirium assessment result in critically ill patients assessed by the ICU nurse with either the Confusion Assessment method for Intensive Care Delirium (CAM-ICU) or the intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) Prospective study The study was a secondary analysis of a previous study performed between September 2015 and June 2016. The study included seven countries and 11 ICUs. The study enrolled 1660 patients, of which 1203 (72%) were assessed with the CAM-ICU and 457 (28%) were assessed with the ICDSC. Participants were 18 years old and older. All data were collected electronically in the secured and validated data management system, CastorEDC, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between the level of sedation expressed in RASS score at the time of delirium assessment and delirium occurrence based on either a CAM-ICU or ICDSC assessment. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0. The instruments used in this study cannot serve in the DPI project. The study did not show a significant difference between the CAM-ICU and ICDSC p=0.01 when used to decrease LOS. At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43–0.78). At a RASS of −1 or −2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations The influence of level of sedation on delirium assessment depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used The study based on comparison between sedation and delirium hence need to compare both CAM-ICU to ICDSC simultaneously and determine its impact on critically ill patients. There is need to compare the CAM-ICU and ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and non-sedated ICU patients There is need to offer training to nurses in intensive care units on how best sedation and delirium influence affects critically ill patients in ICU. The study is relevant since it focuses on determining the influence of sedation on delirium which aligns with DPI project as heath care personnel. Chen, C., Cheng, A., Chou, W., Selvam, P., & Cheng, C. M. (2021). Outcome of improved care bundle in acute respiratory failure patients. Nursing in Critical Care, 26(5), 380–385. https://doi.org /10.1111/nicc.12530 Research question: what is the impact of using early mobilization in reducing respiratory failure of critical care patients using the ABCDEF bundle? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDEF bundle was an essential element in reducing the negative impacts of mechanical ventilation of patients, therefore the bundle would reduce the respiratory failure for critically ill patients. Purpose: This study aim is to determine if such an improved ABCDE bundle would shorten ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and lower medical costs and intra-hospital mortality between phases 1 and phase 2 Pre/ post bundle. The study is a retrospective, observational, before-and-after outcome study The study included adult patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) (N = 173) admitted to a medical center ICU with 19 beds in southern Taiwan comprised of a multidisciplinary team (critical care nurse, nursing assistant, respiratory therapist, physical therapist, patient’s family). The data were retrospectively collected via medical records. The study periods were divided into two phases: phase 1 (pre-bundle), December 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. Phase 2 (after bundle) October 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed using two independent-sample t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. The instruments used in this study can be used in the DPI project. The patients in phase 2 had a significantly lower mean ICU LOS (8.0 vs 12.0) day p <0.05) The study demonstrated there were significant differences of MV, ICU and hospital LOS, medical cost and intra- hospital mortality before phase one and after phase two. The limitations of this study notes, this is a single ICU unit, the study did. Not take in account safety of patient mobilization, the study did not if the patient’s physical function improved pre/post bundle. Lastly the study design type, retrospective lacking randomization. This study adds the clinical outcomes (as a shortened duration of MV and ICU stays) of patients receiving an ABCDE care bundle with early mobilization and family member participation were improved. This study adds the growing body of evidence that implementing the ABCDE can decrease ICU LOS, hospital LOS, decrease cost, through early mobilization using an interprofessional team approach. Bardwell, J., Brimmer, S., & Davis, W. (2020). Implementing the ABCDE Bundle, Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool, and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to Reduce Ventilation Time. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 31(1), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.4037/aacnacc2020451 Research question: what are the impacts of applying the ABCDE bundle, the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool, and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale concurrently in management of pain and reduction of delirium and over sedation? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that reducing oversedation, decreasing the incidence of delirium, and improving pain management would reduce LOS. Purpose: The study aimed to reduce ventilation time by reducing oversedation, decreasing the incidence of delirium, and improving pain management. Retrospective study This study was conducted at a teaching hospital within a 34-bed ICU and included patients in neurosurgical, medical, and surgical (except cardiovascular surgery) ICUs. The study was conducted from February 1, 2017, to April 30, 2017, and after bundle implementation, were for those admitted from February 1, 2018, to April 30, 2018. Analyses were conducted with spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel). The researchers in this study used the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) and improved arterial blood gas values as indicators to wean patients from ventilation or to determine the extubation time. The results demonstrate the chances of reintubation. The RSBI will not be used during the DPI project. The EHR was another instrument for data collection that could also be used in the DPI project. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. A 2-tailed t-test was used to analyze the data. After ABCDE bundle implementation, mean ventilation time significantly decreased by nearly 50% (a difference of 1.98 days). A decrease in ventilation time was observed among all patients. p=0.02 The nursing staff bundle compliance rate was 76.5%. After ABCDE bundle implementation, mean ventilation time significantly decreased by nearly 50% (a difference of 1.98 days). A decrease in ventilation time was observed among all patients. Using the ABCDE bundle reduced sedation time by almost 50% (a difference of 1.93 days), although this finding was not significant. 33 patients were not readmitted within 30 days of hospital discharge or reintubated within 30 days of extubation. One of the limitations of the study was the non-controlled design of the study which raises the possibility of confounding variables that may have influenced study outcomes. Second, the study did not include patients with brain injuries which means that the findings may not be generalizable to neurological or trauma ICUs that care for patients with these injuries. Furthermore, the study cannot be generalized to long-term ventilator care units. The purpose of the study was to implement an international guideline and included only adults, which means that the findings should not be considered definitive and should not be generalized for children until randomized controlled studies involving children validate the results. It is recommended that future studies should include patients with brain injuries for generalizable results in other ICUs. Furthermore, randomized controlled studies should be used in future studies to validate the results. Also, future studies should include both children and adults so that the results can be extrapolated to both adults and children. The article will be used during the DPI project because it demonstrates that reducing oversedation, decreasing the incidence of delirium, and improving pain management would reduce LOS. It scores the fact that proper implementation of ABCDE bundles improves nursing care and patient outcomes. Ren, X. L., Li, J. H., Peng, C., Chen, H., Wang, H. X., Wei, X. L., & Cheng, Q. H. (2017). Effects of ABCDE bundle on hemodynamics in patients on mechanical ventilation. Medical science monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 23, 4650–4656. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.902872 Research question: what are the effects of ABCDE bundle on hemodynamics in patients on mechanical ventilation? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDEF bundle was an essential and safe for patients under the mechanical ventilation. The ABCDEF would be essential in improving oxygenation index and hemodynamics therefore reducing patient’s mortality and enhancing prognosis. Purpose: The aim of this study is to explore the influences of ABCDE bundle on the hemodynamics and prognosis of patients on mechanical ventilation This is a cross-sectional overall, before-after controlled study The study included 143 patients in mechanical ventilation admitted to the ICU. Those admitted from May to December 2015 were classified into the pre-ABCDE bundle group (n=70) and received conventional sedation and analgesia, while those admitted from January to October 2016 were classified into the post-ABCDE bundle group (n=73) and received the ABCDE bundle. Nurses recorded intervention data in the Critical Care Record and entered it into the patient’s EHR. SPSS17.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used for comparison of repeated measurements, the t-test was used for comparison of the means of 2 groups, and the χ2 test was used to compare the rates of both groups. The instruments used in this study can be used in the DPI project. The difference in the prognosis between the bundle and pre-ABCDE bundle groups was statistically significant. Pre bundle 9.76 post bundle 7.47 p 0.000 (p<0.05) statistical significance. The post-ABCDE bundle group had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay, as well as reduced 28-d mortality. ABCDE bundle can significantly improve the hemodynamics indicators of patients on mechanical ventilation, reduce the dose of the sedatives and analgesics used, and keep the hemodynamics indicators, including MAP, CVP, and HR, at levels beneficial to patients the ABCDE bundle is not only beneficial to the venous return, cardiac work, but also could protect the other organs, all of which could increase the oxygenation index and improve the circulatory function. The limitations of this study were lack of randomization The study highlighted patients with full bundle (ABCDE) are hemodynamically stable, have shorter LOS and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation. This study adds, the ABCDE significantly improve the hemodynamics indicators of patients on mechanical ventilation, reduce the dose of the sedatives and analgesics used, and keep the hemodynamics indicators, and has shown to reduce LOS in the vulnerable patient population. Liu, K., Nakamura, K., Katsukawa, H., Nydahl, P., Ely, E. W., Kudchadkar, S. R., Takahashi, K., Elhadi, M., Gurjar, M., Leong, B. K., Chung, C. R., Balachandran, J., Inoue, S., Lefor, A. K., & Nishida, O. (2021). Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle for Critically Ill ICU Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-National 1-Day Point Prevalence Study. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 735860. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.735860 Research question: what are impacts of ABCDEF bundle delivery for ICU patients with or without covid19? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the ABCDEF bundle was significant for the intensive care unit patients to receive high quality care through mobility and reduction of infection rates for covid19 patients. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the implementation rate of evidence-based ICU care for both patients without and with COVID-19 infections and the impact of COVID-19 infections on implementation on a world-wide scale to capture the current clinical practice situation. This is a one-day point prevalence study. The study used questionnaires and surveys for data collection. The questionnaire solicited patient demographics, such as age, gender, Body Mass Index (BMI), and ICU length of stay. The questionnaire identified the use of medical devices, continuous neuromuscular blockade, vasoactive, analgesia, and sedation agents, prone positioning, and duration. In addition, the presence of a target/goal of each ICU care modality given to ICU patients on the survey date and the implementation of each element of the ABCDEF bundle and an ICU diary provided on the survey data were collected. Data was anonymous for both patients and institutions. All the data were stored online (Google Drive, Google Inc.) and managed or exported by authorized personnel. The ABCDEF bundle and the ICU diary between the groups of patients without and with COVID-19 infections were made with the Mann-Whitney U-test for non-normally distributed continuous data and the chi-squared test, and Fisher’s exact test for categorical data. The instrument used in this study, a questionnaire, can also be used in the DPI project. ICU LOS: patients without COVID19 infection 5 [2.10], patients with COVID 19 infection 9 [2-10] p<0.001 This study showed the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle was low regardless of COVID19 The limitation of the study noted First, the limited number of patients and participating countries (Japan accounts for 40%) could lead to selection bias and limit generalizability to other ICUs and countries. Second, the nature of a point prevalence study does not define a causal relationship and reflects the overwhelming situation at participating sites. This point prevalence study took place entirely on 1 day. Third, potential confounding factors associated with implementation, such as disease-related factors, were not investigated. Finally, an odds ratio with a relatively broad confidence interval may indicate an unstable model created by multivariate analysis. As the guideline suggests, it is important to note that evidence-based ICU care, such as the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary, should be incorporated into clinical practice for all ICU patients regardless of their underlying diseases or the ICU length of stay. These results particularly show that a promising strategy to introduce or implement a specific element of the bundle in an ICU could vary and should be designed depending on the context and local situation in which it will be implemented. COVID- 19 infection was not a barrier to the implementation of each element of the ABCDEF bundle. This study had a different approach other than mobility, but included the use of a diary (the F) of the bundle. It added to growing evidence the use of the bundle can reduce length of stay and make noted low or incomplete implementation can result in longer hospitalization, it identified the bundle as a cohesiveness to reduce LOS Louzon, P., Jennings, H., Ali, M., & Kraisinger, M. (2017). Impact of pharmacist management of pain, agitation, and delirium in the intensive care unit through participation in multidisciplinary bundle rounds. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 74(4), 253–262. https://doi.org /10.2146/ajhp150942 Research question: how can the pharmacists increased role of care delivery reduction of length of stay, ventilator use and hospital costs? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the two phase initiative was significant for more caregiver’s involvement in patient’s care delivery thus reducing use of sedatives, ventilators, the healthcare costs and length of stay in the hospital. Purpose: The study sought to improve LOS and ventilator day measures, reduce hospital expenditures, and advance pharmacists’ scope of practice within a large community teaching hospital. This is a two-phase program a retrospective cohort study This study included 436. Patients were managed with the ABCDEF bundle, and 499 patients of those with standard care. In a Florida hospital in the United States. Steps to implement this program occurred in two phases. Phase 1 involved an initial pilot program designed to allow ICU pharmacists to directly manage sedative therapy for mechanically ventilated patients in collaboration with an intensivist. In phase 2, that initiative was expanded to include comprehensive pharmacist PAD management, as well as the development of a multispecialty interprofessional team to encourage early mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients. This study used the APACHE outcomes tool for managing critical care outcomes methodology. Variables were compared between the two treatments groups using Student’s t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test of independence (Fisher’s exact test) for categorical data. The instruments used in this study can also be used in the DPI project Patients who received care via the pharmacist directed sedation management strategy were exposed to a mean of 102 fewer hours of continuous sedation, a 40.4% reduction relative to mean hours in the standard-care cohort (p = 0.0025); In the intervention-group patient had a reduction of 1.2 ventilator days, which did not reach statistical significance (mean, 8.6 days versus 7.4 days; p = 0.07); however, this was considered a clinically important difference due to the potential impact on ICU resource consumption and ICU LOS. Mean ICU LOS did not significantly change with the use of the ABCDE bundle versus standard care (4.6 days versus 4.3 days, p = 0.26), but the APACHE ratio for ICU LOS was significantly decreased, from 0.96 to 0.81 (p = 0.02). The objective was to determine the effects of pharmacist-directed sedation management on the use of continuous sedation, hospital LOS, and ventilator days. Secondary endpoints were as follows: The total amount of sedation used, ICU LOS, ventilator days, number of Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores greater than +1, and reintubation rates. This study notes the previous culture of deeper sedation and continuous infusions of analgesic and sedative regimens was engrained in the daily processes of the ICU team. Introducing a new culture took intensive continuing education and daily reinforcement of concepts. Some physicians were initially hesitant to support increased pharmacist involvement in management of their patients; challenge was the need to dedicate limited ICU pharmacist resources to a new daily patient care service. Delirium screening was not fully implemented until phase 2 of the project, so comparative data on the impact of screening were not available for analysis in the cohort study; this is an area for future study. This study was significant for the number of participants in this cohort study that demonstrated the use to bundle with the assistance of a pharmacist managing sedative implementing mobility demonstrated decreased ventilation days and decreased LOS decreased hospital cost by 46%, an estimated saving of 1.2 million dollars. Sinvani, L., Kozikowski, A., Patel, V., Mulvany, C., Talukder, D., Akerman, M., Pekmezaris, R., Wolf-Klein, G., & Hajizadeh, N. (2018). Nonadherence to Geriatric-Focused Practices in Older Intensive Care Unit Survivors. American Journal Of Critical Care, 27(5), 354-361. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2018363 Research question: what are the roles of geriatric-focused practices and improved intensive care unit’s patients? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the application of the geriatric focused practices was essential for improving the care under intensive units. If caregivers do not adhere to the geriatric methods like using benzodiazepines, restraints and nothing by mouth would increase hospital stays and pressure ulcers. Purpose: The study aims at exploring geriatric-focused practices and associated outcomes in older intensive care survivors. This is a retrospective, cohort study The study initially used a database of 10,529 patients, focusing on 313 of that 179 who met inclusion criteria. The study was conducted at a hospital in New York 764-bed tertiary academic center. A total of 179 patients (mean age, 80.5 years) met the inclusion criteria. Data was extracted from EMR. The study’s primary focus was Geriatric practices and the screening for delirium using the CAM-ICU assessment, a component of the ABCDEF bundle, and pain agitation, using descriptive statistics. The instrument used in this study can also be used in the DPI study. Nonadherence to geriatric-focused practices, including nothing by mouth p = .004), exposure to benzodiazepines (p = .007), and use of restraints (p< .001), were associated with longer stay in the intensive care unit. Nothing by mouth (p = .002) and restraint use (p = .003) was significantly associated with longer Hospital stays. The study indicated high levels of non-adherence to geriatric-focused practices was co-dependent on hospital length of stay. The limitations were, study design, The data was collected retrospectively from one site. Multiple studies in outpatients and inpatients, but not in ICU patients, have indicated better compliance with general medical best practices than with geriatric focused practices. The study identified a gap in care relating to geriatric care noting there is need to train healthcare providers geriatric focused practices to cater for the elderly. Healthcare workers need to go for a thorough training on ICU safety measures to cater for the elderly to improve clinical outcomes. Also, there is need to increase number of geriatric health care providers dedicated to the care of hospitalized older adults to meet the growing demands of the aging population. The study is relevant to the DPI project as a healthcare worker since it explores geriatric-focused practices and the associated outcomes for older adults in ICU survivors. The authors of this study highlight post-ICU syndrome (PICS) and its association with delirium and clinical outcomes. The authors aimed to use the ABCDEF bundle to assist in the management of geriatric patients. The study highlight that geriatrics were exposed to benzodiazepines, and it was associated with increased LOS. Trogrlić, Z., van der Jagt, M., Lingsma, H., Gommers, D., Ponssen, H., & Schoonderbeek, J. et al. (2019). Improved Guideline Adherence and Reduced Brain Dysfunction After a Multicenter Multifaceted Implementation of ICU Delirium Guidelines in 3,930 Patients. Critical Care Medicine, 47(3), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003596 Research question: what is the role of tailored multifaceted implementation program of ICU delirium guidelines on processes of care in improving the clinical outcomes? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the tailored multifaceted implementation program of ICU delirium guidelines on processes of care was essential for ensuring a better patient’s care program especially for the critically ill since it includes baseline and delirium screening. Purpose: The study aim to evaluate the impact of a tailored multifaceted implementation program of ICU delirium guidelines on processes of care and clinical outcomes and draw lessons regarding guideline implementation. Prospective cohort study The study involved ICUs in one university hospital and five community hospitals in the Neverlands. The size of the units varied between eight and 32 ICU beds. Consecutive ICU patients 18 years old or older were included. Consecutive medical and surgical critically ill patients were enrolled between April 1, 2012, and February 1, 2015. A total of 3,930 patients were included in the study. Kruskal-Wallis was used to examine between-group differences for nonparametric analyses. Differences in clinical outcomes between the three phases were assessed with adjusted regression models. Poisson regression was used for count data (e.g., number of delirium assessments per day), logistic regression for binary outcomes, and linear regression for continuous outcomes. Data was collected using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) checklist and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Study data were prospectively collected by research nurses using a data handling protocol. The instrument used in this study can be used in the DPI project. The length of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stays, and hospital mortality, did not change ICU length of stay (d), mean (sd) PHASE 1= 1,337 4.9 (6.9) a) –0.3 (–0.8 to 0.1; p = 0.19) PHASE 2=1,399 4.3 (6.0) b) –0.1 (–0.6 to 0.3; p = 0.56) PHASE 3=,194 4.8 (5.9) c) 0.2 (–0.3 to 0.6; p = 0.49) Delirium screening increased from 35% to 93%. Continuous intravenous benzodiazepine sedation decreased from 36% to 31% to 17%. Physical therapy (PT), early mobilization of patients, sedation assessments, and light sedation improved significantly. The duration of delirium decreased over three periods after guideline implementation. Other clinical outcome measures, such as length of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and hospital mortality, did not change. The participating ICUs already applied light sedation practices in general, it was decided not to focus strongly on safety screens for Spontaneous Awakening Trials (SATs) and Spontaneous Breathing Trials (SBTs), which may have precluded improvements of the secondary outcomes, such as length of ventilation, ICU stay, or mortality. In the study, the Hawthorne effect was not avoided, seeing that delirium screening implementation alone resulted in improved adherence to several guideline recommendations. duration of delirium might be a doubtful outcome parameter due to the difference between a clinical diagnosis as assessed by chart review at baseline compared with the second and third phases. Certain changes over time may have been overestimated in the presence of secular trends Since implementation of delirium guidelines in ICUs resulted to a decrease in brain dysfunction outcome, there is need for clearer guidelines to improve clinical care adherence and overall outcome. Collaboration between healthcare professionals is also paramount to the success of the guideline’s implementation process. There is need for additional health professionals to care for the ICU patients by screening delirium to boost the clinical outcomes. This study is in line with the DPI project as it tips how best ICU delirium guidelines can be integrated to improve patients’ clinical adherence. This study demonstrated that implementing the ABCDEF bundle had improved health professionals’ adherence to delirium guidelines, which was linked to reduced brain dysfunction and decreased ICU stay. Data from this study added to existing implementation literature, strongly enhancing the translatability of findings. Zhang, S., Han, Y., Xiao, Q., Li, H., & Wu, Y. (2021). Effectiveness of Bundle Interventions on ICU Delirium: A Meta-Analysis*. Critical Care Medicine, 49(2), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004773 Research question: what is the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium prevalence, duration, and other patients’ adverse outcomes? Hypothesis: the authors hypothesized that the bundle intervention is significant in reduction of ICU delirium prevalence, reduction of hospital stay and overall mortality rates for the critically ill patients. Purpose: This study aim at evaluating the impact of bundle interventions on ICU delirium prevalence, duration, and other patients’ adverse outcomes. Meta-Analysis The study used a standardized data collection where two authors extracted data independently. A total of 26,384 adult participants were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included five studies; three were randomized clinical trials, and two were cohort studies. The study data sources included the Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and MEDLINE from January 2000 to July 2020. Data were extracted using a standardized data collection form. The quality of studies was assessed using the Modified Jadad Score Scale for randomized clinical trials and the Newcastle -Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. The instruments used in this study cannot be included in the DPI project. There were nine studies (seven RCTs and two cohort studies) reporting Results on the ICU LOS. With a total of 5,184 ICU patients included in the meta-analysis using a random-effects model, the pooled result showed that the MD was 1.08 days shorter (95% CI, –2.16 to 0.00; p = 0.05) In addition, five studies (four RCTs and one cohort study) measured hospital LOS, and the meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model (I2 = 42%; p = 0.14) found that the MD of hospital LOS was 1.47 (95% CI, –2.80 to –0.15; p = 0.03) days shorter among 726 ICU patients in the intervention group compared with patients in the control group The study indicated that bundle interventions are effective in reducing the proportion of patient-days experiencing coma, hospital length of stay, 28-day mortality and mechanical ventilation. The study included both RCT and cohort studies in the current analysis, and heterogeneity was identified among studies in terms of results on the ICU delirium prevalence and duration, MV days, ICU, or hospital LOS. The number of studies included in the current analysis reporting outcomes on ICU mortality is small, which may have insufficient power to assess the differences and limited the interpretation of our pooled data. Although some studies reported coma-related outcomes, we failed to combine these data for analysis due to different presented data formats. Majority of the studies in this analysis did not include all elements of the bundle approach, the modifiable risk factors identified by the PADIS Guidelines are not fully addressed in the interventions. Further studies should be conducted to evaluate a more modifiable risk factors for ICU Delirium intervention to enhance bundle effectiveness. A more rigorous RCTs and full implementation of ABCDEF bundle should be considered to test effect of ICU intervention. Clinicians should regularly attend training on implementation of bundle intervention to improve ICU clinical outcomes. This study highlights the impacts of bundle interventions on ICU delirium prevalence, duration, and other patient adverse outcomes. The impacts highlighted in the article are vital for the DPI project in healthcare as it enhances the learner’s knowledge of how best ICU conditions can be improved to yield a positive outcome. Table 5Theoretical Framework Aligning to DPI Project Nursing Theory Selected APA Reference – Seminal Research References (Include the GCU permalink or working link used to access each article.) Explanation for the Nursing Theory Guides the Practice Aspect of the DPI Project Virginia Henderson’s nursing needs theory Ahtisham, Y., & Jacoline, S. (2015). Integrating nursing theory and process into practice; Virginia’s Henderson need theory. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 443–450. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1685874255 Henderson, V. (1966). The nature of nursing: A definition and its implications for practice, research, and education. Macmillan Virginia Henderson’s Nursing Needs Theory will be used to guide the DPI project. Henderson identified that the unique function of the nurse is to assist the individual, sick or healthy, in the performance of those activities contributing to health or its recovery (or to peaceful death) that he would perform unaided if he had the necessary strength, will, or knowledge. Moreover, to do this in such a way as to help him gain independence as rapidly as possible (Henderson, 1966). Henderson named her theory The Nursing Needs Theory as it categorizes nursing into fourteen components based on human needs (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). The first nine are physiological, such as breathing normally, eating and drinking adequately, excretion, mobility and maintaining body postures, enough sleep and rest, suitable clothing, maintaining body temperatures by wearing different clothes in different environments, maintaining body hygiene and avoiding dangers both personal and from endangering others. The 10th and 14th are psychological aspects of learning and communication, such as expressing emotions, fears, or needs through communication; the 11th is worshipping, working to express a sense of accomplishment, and participating in various recreational activities (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). Henderson viewed the nursing process as applying the logical approach to solving the problem (Ahtisham & Jacoline, 2015). Implementing this theory in the DPI project will aid nursing in the implementation of the ABCDEF bundle successfully. Change Theory Selected APA Reference – Seminal Research References (Include the GCU permalink or working link used to access each article.) Explanation for How the Change Theory Outlines the Strategies for Implementing the Proposed Intervention John Kotter’s 8 Steps for Change Kang, S.P., Chen, Y., Svihla, V., Gallup, A. K. (2022). Guiding change in higher education: An emergent, iterative application of Kotter’s change model. Studies in Higher Education, 47(2), 271-289. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.org/10.108/03075079.2020.1741540 Kotter, J. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 55-67. John Kotter’s 8 Steps for Change model applies to implement change (Kotter, 1995). These strategies can be applied in implementing the ABCDEF bundle to decrease LOS. According to Kotter (1995), the first step is creating urgency. Kang et al. (2022) explain the theory. According to Kang et al. (2022), the proposed interventions must develop urgency. Identifying accuracy is needed in identifying the existing threats in caring for patients. Therefore, discuss the weaknesses with the stakeholders and colleagues and ask for their support to implement the change. Secondly, put together a guiding coalition. Come up with competent leaders and professionals to steer the agenda to influence the stakeholders. Thirdly develop vision and strategies. In this step, come up with a clear vision of how the organization will look if the change is implemented. A clear vision of how the health sector would look after implementing intervention will enhance action and decision-making. The next step is communicating the change vision. In this step, communicate to capture the hearts of other health workers to support the change. The next step is avoiding barriers. The guiding team avoids barriers to the change to drum up support. The next step is accomplishing short-term wins. These short-term wins serve as encouragement and should be related to the change. E.g., win by demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention. The next step is building on the change. This step ensures the team is overworking to achieve the change and measure progress. The last step is to make the change stick. He re-ensures that everyone adapts to new change by illustrating its importance and training them on the skills necessary to maintain the new change. These steps will be used to implement unit change, implementing the ABCDEF bundle for the DPI project. Appendix C Project Timeline Activity Course Start Date Number of Days Required End Date Comments EBP Question: Conceptual Review of PICOT-D Question 820A Date Reviewed: N/A This PICOT required several re-submission Project achieved final approval during DNP Seminar 1-19-2023 PICOT-D Question Approved 820A Date Approved3-10-22 N/A 3-10-22 Several re-submissions 4 to be exact before final approval Evidence: Primary Quantitative Research of the Intervention 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice DNP Seminar 3-20-2022 9 3-29-2022 1-19-2023 Because previous projects were not approved, this learner began researching a new topic in this course. Research and articles noted on literature review table Project achieved final approval 1-19-2023 Additional Primary and Secondary Quantitative Research 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice DNP Seminar 4-2-2022 3 4-5-2022 1-19-2023 20 articles submitted (five ) primary) fifteen secondary Connecting Nursing Theory and Evidence-Based Change Model 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice 815A 3-20-2022 2 3-21-2022 Due to changing of PICOT-D questions deciding on a theorist spanned over two courses – final noted in 820A Virginia Henderson – nursing needs theory John Kotter’s eight step change model Literature Synthesis for Proposed Intervention 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice 3-2022 2 3-2022 Final paper was due this course Translation: Create a project implementation plan (10 Strategic Points) 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice 3-26-2022 2 3-28-2022 Very few changes were needed from initial draft, Determine fit, feasibility, and appropriateness of the intervention for translation path (DPI Project Budget and Timeline) DNP-840A Leadership for Advance Nursing Practice 7-30-22 3 6-2-2023 DPI project will accrue very little cost, cost will mostly consist of coping data for distribution Project Planning Attend Virtual Nurse Residency NP Seminar 1-19-2023 1 1-19-2023 Attended Seminar 1-19-2023 for 10 strategic points and Literature review table approved for entry to begin project courses Create a Data Collection Sheet and Data Dictionary DNP-830A 10-1-2022 2 10-5-2022 Successfully created in DNP 830A DPI Project Proposal (Chapters 1-3) DNP-955A 2-16-2023 21 6-7-2023 Chapter 1 due 3-1-2023 Chapter 2 due 3-8-2023 Chapter 3 due 3-22-2023 Proposal (Chapters 1-3) Defense DNP-955A 3-1-2023 14 6-7-2023 Anticipate revisions final due 5-15-2023 IRB Site Authorization for the Project (not MOU) DNP 960A 6-8-2023 15 10-2023 Approval letter returned from Clinical Site Medical Director, Dr. Edward Wong in DNP 820A IRB approval pending Permissions for Tools, Instruments, Surveys or Guidelines 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice 4-14-2022 16 5-2-2022 All permission were granted, Society of Critical Care Medicine – ABCDEF Bundle Johns Hopkins Hospital -Mobility Scale Vanderbilt University Medical Ctr- ICU delirium Project Site IRB Approval/Determination (if applicable) 820A Translational Research and Evidence Based Practice 4-18-2022 1 4-19-2022 Organization does not have IRB, approval letter returned from Clinical Site Medical Director, Dr. Edward Wong Granted permission to implement DPI project GCU IRB Approval 960A 6/2023 estimated 7-10 6/2023 Anticipate approval in course DNP 960A Project Implementation Implement Project Plan (Training of Staff) 960A 6/2023 Estimated 30days 7/2023 This is contingent when project manager can begin teaching for project implementation Collect Data 960A 7/2023 Estimated 56days 8/2023 8 weeks of data collection Project Evaluation Evaluate Outcomes (Data Analysis and Results) 960A 6/2023 30days 10/2023 DPI Completed Project (Chapters 1-5) 960A 6/2023 21 10/2023 Chapter 1 due 2-23-2023 Chapter 2 due 3-8-2023 Chapter 3 due 3-22-2023 Chapters 4-5 due in DNP 960A Project Dissemination Report Outcomes to Stakeholders (DPI Final Project Defense) 965A 10/2023 7 2/2023 Department Review 965A 10/2023 7 2/2024 Dean’s Signature 965A 10/2023 14 2/2024 Publish in ProQuest 965A 10/2023 14 2/2024 Appendix D Plan for Educational Offering Lesson Plan for Educational Offering on the ABCDE Bundle This lesson plan will act as a blueprint of activities to guide nurses’ implementation of the ABCDE Bundle in a long-term acute care in urban Virginia. The lesson will follow the following activities: pre-assessment, in-service at a mandatory job skill fair, educational offering with handouts and PowerPoint presentation, and a post-assessment. In addition, portable flipcharts and posters will be posted in the project unit to act as visual reminders of the education. Lesson Objectives By the end of the lesson, learners will be able to define the elements and interventions of the ABCDE bundle and its importance in promoting quality care in long-term acute care setting By the end of the lesson the learner will recite why it’s essential to engage patients and caregivers’ example, family members, during the implementation of the ABCDE bundle. (Kram et al., 2015). By the end of the lesson, the learner will identify the benefits of implementing the ABCDE bundle in the long-term acute care hospital, including ensuring improved patient outcomes and role in reducing length of stay. According to Bounds et al. (2016), the bundle is associated with delirium occurrence reduction, patient care improvements in understanding LTACHs, and lowering the financial demands of patients in critical care units. Comprehension of the learning will be evaluated in the post-assessment, passing score of 80% for demonstration of the intervention. Methods In-Person In-Service at a Mandatory Job Skills Fair: An initial in-service will be performed by the primary investigator at the mandatory skills fair. All staff members will be is required to attend the yearly skills fair. The primary investigator will present the ABCDE Bundle via poster presentation, with handouts at the skills fair. For those who did not attend the yearly skills fair, an in-service will be held. Educational Offering: During the initial training, a PowerPoint presentation will be used to summarize the main points of ABCDE Bundle implementation. The presentation will begin after a post-test assessment. The educational offering will include how to use and document the ABCDE Bundle elements, including how to use and score the CAM-ICU and RASS. The presentation will end with a post-test assessment. Handouts will be provided at the educational offering, which will include: Pre- and Post-Test Assessments “Wake Up and Breathe” Protocol Handout Bedside Treatments for ABCDE Protocol CAM-ICU Worksheet Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale Johns Hopkins Mobility Goal Calculator Visual Reminders: Posters of the bundle elements will be on display in each break room and two portable sheet protected flip charts will be housed on each unit. The flipcharts will be of the initial PowerPoint presentation to act as a reminder of the information in the education. On-Going Education: The bundle elements will be reviewed during the daily safety huddles on the unit held at 7 am for the day shift and 7 pm for the night shift. The unit nursing supervisor will act as the bundle champion and provide the daily just-in-time education on the bundle elements. Appendix E Grand Canyon University Institutional Review Board Outcome Letter Appendix F Project Budget Expenses Direct or Indirect Cost Fixed or Variable Cost Total Anticipated Cost Rationale for Total Anticipated Cost (50-150 words each) Labor $600.00– staff education Full presentation 30min $4,800 Project manager rate $1400 =$6,800 NA None Hours for this DPI will be conducted outside of working hours- to ensure both shifts are given training for implementation – time designated 15min all employees during safety huddle. Full project implementation x 2 shifts 2 days week. Project manager hours of 20 hrs for education Materials $200 $100-150 >$100 Copier paper (preferably color) with lamination – posture board – learner will create a visual aid (poster board) displaying Bundle elements – cost of material along with printed handouts will pose the greatest expense Plastic display stands / holders Travel NA NA NA Travel cost is not applicable, this project will be implemented at my work place with staff employed at the Urban Virginia long-term acute care hospital Equipment 2,500 x 40 chairs =100,000 $2,500-5,000 (1-2) chairs refurbished 5,000 (if2 chairs purchased) This project will utilize equipment current located/ designated at the clinical site, Chairs for mobility is currently part of the Urban Virginia long-term acute care hospital equipment / inventory. If chairs are be purchased for each room the cost is noted in equipment. Printer- already established hospital equipment Space NO accrued cost NA NA Space is not a contributing factor- bundle implementation is a part of nursing assessment -care is provided in patients rooms – documentation by nursing staff to occur either bedside or nurse’s station Data collection – to be done at learner’s designated office space License NA NA NA No special license is required to implement this DPI project Permission for use of literature has been established Miscellaneous Expense $25 $1120 (conference) $498 hotel $507 Airfare $25 $30 Gas for travel for staff training Attend conference Sept 14-15, 2022 Nashville, Tennessee ICU Liberation Conference, learner attending conference to gain better incite on bundle interventions and how to successfully implement at the work place with the assistance of other healthcare professionals who has implemented the bundle at their perspective organizations Appendix G ABCDE Bundle Checklist Delirium, Vanderbilt University. Available at www.ICUdelerium.org Appendix H Place the Permission to Use the ABCDE Bundle Checklist

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now
Writerbay.net

We offer the best essay writing services to students who value great quality at a fair price. Let us exceed your expectations if you need help with this or a different assignment. Get your paper completed by a writing expert today. Nice to meet you! Want 15% OFF your first order? Use Promo Code: FIRST15. Place your order in a few easy steps. It will take you less than 5 minutes. Click one of the buttons below.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper