Three main questions
When conducting a review these are the 3 main questions that need to be answered when reviewing literature. What level of
evidence? How well was the study conducted? How useful is the study to practice? (These are the questions that will be answered as
you fill out this form, you do not need to provide an answer here).
Part I
Literature review
Literature Focus/Title Identify Intervention Sample # Variables Data collection Ethical Impact to practice
underlying of independent/depen Quantitative/Qualitative considera
theory, subjects dent tions/Vul
framework nerable
, or model populatio
ns
1. Comparative Nightingale This study is 14,488 Independent: CHG Quantitative data was This study This study shows
Effectiveness of 2 ’s looking at with gel dressing used (gel collected with the did a significant
Chlorhexidine environme the dressings dressings or sponge number of infection involve decrease in
Gluconate (CHG)- ntal theory comparison and dressings) rates when utilizing two some CLABSI rates as
Containing of the CHG 38,661 different styles of CHG vulnerabl well as overall
Dressings in impregnated with Dependent: CLABSI central line dressings. e hospital stay
Reducing Central gel dressings sponge infection rates populatio length with CHG
Line-Associated and the CHG dressing. ns when gel dressings
Bloodstream sponge looking at were used on
Infections (CLABSI), dressings and the ICU central lines
Hospital Stay and looking at patients versus the CHG
Costs the infection and foam dressings.
rates patients
associated with high
with each. comorbidi
ties
including
blood
disorders,
, diabetes,
renal
diseases,
and
congestiv
e heart
failure.
2. Chlorhexidine Nightingale The This study Independent: CHG This data had both This study This study shows
Baths: Supporting ’s intervention was bathing with quantitative data that was a significant
daily use to reduce environme in this study executed wipes on patients was in the number of conducte decrease in
central line- ntal theory with the daily over a central line related d on a infection rates
associated use of CHG three- Dependent: infections as well as hematolo when patients
bloodstream bathing with month CLABSI infection qualitative in the gy- were receiving
infections affecting patients who period on rates patient compliance with oncology CHG baths. It also
immunocompromised had central a 24-bed CHG bathing. unit showed that
patients lines. hospital which patient’s refusal
unit. results as to get CHG baths
a did increase their
vulnerabl rise of infections.
e
populatio
n for this
study.
3. Chlorhexidine Nightingale This study There Independent: CHG Quantitative data was With this This study
Bathing to Prevent ’s gave were 893 bathing collected in number of study showcased that
Central Line- environme patient’s the total infection rates. being there is no
Associated ntal theory option to patients Dependent: Central conducte significant
Bloodstream utilize CHG eligible line infection rates. d on a decrease in
Infections in bathing with for the hematolo CLABSI rates
Hematology Units: A a central line trial and gy unit, when patient’s
Prospective, present. 485 chose that is a chose to utilize
Controlled Cohort CHG baths vulnerabl CHG bathing
Study while 408 e patient techniques versus
chose not populatio not.
When conducting a review these are the 3 main questions that need to be answered when reviewing literature. What level of
evidence? How well was the study conducted? How useful is the study to practice? (These are the questions that will be answered as
you fill out this form, you do not need to provide an answer here).
Part I
Literature review
Literature Focus/Title Identify Intervention Sample # Variables Data collection Ethical Impact to practice
underlying of independent/depen Quantitative/Qualitative considera
theory, subjects dent tions/Vul
framework nerable
, or model populatio
ns
1. Comparative Nightingale This study is 14,488 Independent: CHG Quantitative data was This study This study shows
Effectiveness of 2 ’s looking at with gel dressing used (gel collected with the did a significant
Chlorhexidine environme the dressings dressings or sponge number of infection involve decrease in
Gluconate (CHG)- ntal theory comparison and dressings) rates when utilizing two some CLABSI rates as
Containing of the CHG 38,661 different styles of CHG vulnerabl well as overall
Dressings in impregnated with Dependent: CLABSI central line dressings. e hospital stay
Reducing Central gel dressings sponge infection rates populatio length with CHG
Line-Associated and the CHG dressing. ns when gel dressings
Bloodstream sponge looking at were used on
Infections (CLABSI), dressings and the ICU central lines
Hospital Stay and looking at patients versus the CHG
Costs the infection and foam dressings.
rates patients
associated with high
with each. comorbidi
ties
including
blood
disorders,
, diabetes,
renal
diseases,
and
congestiv
e heart
failure.
2. Chlorhexidine Nightingale The This study Independent: CHG This data had both This study This study shows
Baths: Supporting ’s intervention was bathing with quantitative data that was a significant
daily use to reduce environme in this study executed wipes on patients was in the number of conducte decrease in
central line- ntal theory with the daily over a central line related d on a infection rates
associated use of CHG three- Dependent: infections as well as hematolo when patients
bloodstream bathing with month CLABSI infection qualitative in the gy- were receiving
infections affecting patients who period on rates patient compliance with oncology CHG baths. It also
immunocompromised had central a 24-bed CHG bathing. unit showed that
patients lines. hospital which patient’s refusal
unit. results as to get CHG baths
a did increase their
vulnerabl rise of infections.
e
populatio
n for this
study.
3. Chlorhexidine Nightingale This study There Independent: CHG Quantitative data was With this This study
Bathing to Prevent ’s gave were 893 bathing collected in number of study showcased that
Central Line- environme patient’s the total infection rates. being there is no
Associated ntal theory option to patients Dependent: Central conducte significant
Bloodstream utilize CHG eligible line infection rates. d on a decrease in
Infections in bathing with for the hematolo CLABSI rates
Hematology Units: A a central line trial and gy unit, when patient’s
Prospective, present. 485 chose that is a chose to utilize
Controlled Cohort CHG baths vulnerabl CHG bathing
Study while 408 e patient techniques versus
chose not populatio not.
