,TESTBANK FOR Evidence-Based Geriatric Nursing
Protocols for Best Practice, 6e Boltz
Notes
1- The file is chapter after chapter.
2- We have shown you few pages sample.
3- The file contains all Appendix and Excel sheet
if it exists.
4- We have all what you need, we make update
at every time. There are many new editions
waiting you.
5- If you think you purchased the wrong file You
can contact us at every time, we can replace it
with true one.
Our email:
, Test Bank for
EVIDENCE-BASED GERIATRIC
NURSING PROTOCOLS FOR BEST
PRACTICE
Sixth Edition
Marie Boltz, PhD, RN, GNP-BC,
FGSA, FAAN
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Elizabeth A. Capezuti, PhD, RN,
FAAN
DeAnne Zwicker, DrNP, AGNP-BC
Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN
EDITORS
,ISBN: 978-0-8261-5187-2
,Copyright © 2021 Springer Publishing Company, LLC
All rights reserved.
This work is protected by U.S. copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching
their courses and as an aid for student learning. No part of this publication may be sold, reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Springer Publishing Company,
LLC.
Springer Publishing Company, LLC
11 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
www.springerpub.com
ISBN: 978-0-8261-5187-2
The author and the publisher of this Work have made every effort to use sources believed to be reliable to
provide information that is accurate and compatible with the standards generally accepted at the time of
publication. The author and publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary
damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance on, the information contained
in this book. The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on
such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
© Springer Publishing Group, LLC 3
,Chapter 1: Developing and Evaluating Clinical Practice Guidelines: A
Systematic Approach
Multiple Choice Test Questions
1. Models of evidence-based practice (EBP) involve which of the following steps when
determining the process of developing protocols? Select all that apply.
*a. Develop an answerable question
b. Compare the evidence to what one feels to be true
*c. Critically appraise the evidence
*d. Locate the best evidence
Rationale: Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves five steps:
1. Develop an answerable question
2. Locate the best evidence
3. Critically appraise the evidence
4. Integrate evidence into practice using clinical expertise with attention to patient’s values and
perspectives; and
5. Evaluate the outcome(s)
Comparing the evidence to what one feels to be true is not a part of evidence-based practice.
2. When critically evaluating the evidence used in a study, which level of evidence is at the
bottom of the level of evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid?
*a. Opinions of respected authorities
b. Systematic reviews of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs)
c. Single experimental studies (Randomized Controlled Trials)
d. Nonexperimental studies
Rationale: The level of evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid highlights six levels of evidence.
Opinions of respected authorities, internationally or nationally known, based on their clinical
experience or the opinions of an expert committee, including regulatory or legal opinions, form
the lowest level of evidence (i.e., Level VI, at the bottom of the LOE pyramid). The highest level
of evidence, at the top of the pyramid, is comprised of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or
structured integrative reviews of evidence. Evidence judged to be at Level II comes from a single
randomized controlled trial. Nonexperimental studies are considered Level IV evidence.
4 © Springer Publishing Group, LLC
,3. Which of the following questions are based on the PICO format? Select all that apply.
*a. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, is hydrotherapy more effective than traditional
physiotherapy in relieving pain?
*b. For obese children, does the use of community recreation activities compared to
educational programs on lifestyle changes reduce the risk of diabetes mellitus?
*c. For deep vein thrombosis, is D-dimer testing or ultrasound more accurate for diagnosis?
d. Do adults who binge drink have higher mortality rates?
Rationale: PICO stands for:
P - Population or patient problem
I - Intervention
C - Comparison group or standard practice
O - Outcomes
PICO format is used to frame the research question and facilitate literature search. Each research
question is narrowed down to clearly state the population or the patient problem, the intervention
being studied, the comparison group, and the outcome measures. In the question “In patients
with osteoarthritis of the knee, is hydrotherapy more effective than traditional physiotherapy in
relieving pain?”, patients with osteoarthritis form the population, hydrotherapy is the
intervention that is being compared with traditional physiotherapy, and pain relief is the expected
outcome. In the question “For obese children, does the use of community recreation activities
compared to educational programs on lifestyle changes reduce the risk of diabetes mellitus?”,
obese children form the study population, use of community recreation services is the
intervention, being compared to educational programs on lifestyle changes, and reducing the risk
of diabetes mellitus is the expected outcome. In the question “For deep vein thrombosis, is D-
dimer testing or ultrasound more accurate for diagnosis?”, deep vein thrombosis is the patient
problem, D-dimer testing is the intervention, being compared to ultrasound for accuracy of
diagnosis, that is the expected outcome. The question “Do adults who binge drink have higher
mortality rates?” does not follow the PICO format. In this question, adults form the population
being studied, binge drinking is the intervention, and higher mortality rate is the outcome being
studied. However, the comparison group is not defined and stated in the question.
© Springer Publishing Group, LLC 5
,4. Which of the following statements regarding the AGREE II instrument are true? Select all
that apply.
*a. The AGREE instrument has 6 quality domains with 23 items divided among these
domains.
*b. Each domain is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
agree” by a number of appraisers.
c. The six domain scores are aggregated into a single quality score.
d. The reliability of the AGREE instrument is decreased when each guideline is appraised by more
than one appraiser.
Rationale: The AGREE II instrument has six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder
involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, application, and editorial
independence. A total of 23 items are divided into these domains. Each domain is rated on a 4-
point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” by a number of appraisers.
Appraisers evaluate how well the guideline they are assessing meets the criteria of the six quality
domains. The six domain scores are independent and should not be aggregated into a single
quality score. The reliability of the AGREE instrument is increased, not decreased, when each
guideline is appraised by more than one appraiser.
5. Four appraisers give the following scores, as shown in the table below, for domain 1 (Scope
& Purpose) in the AGREE II instrument. What will be the scaled domain score?
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4
Appraiser 1 5 6 6 17
Appraiser 2 6 6 7 19
Appraiser 3 2 4 3 9
Appraiser 4 3 3 2 8
16 19 18 53
a. 53%
*b. 57%
c. 47%
d. 19%
Rationale:
Maximum possible score = 7 (strongly agree) × 3 (items) × 4 (appraisers) = 84
Minimum possible score = 1 (strongly disagree) × 3 (items) × 4 (appraisers) = 12
The scaled domain score will be:
Obtained score − Minimum possible score
Maximum possible score −Minimum possible score
53 − 12 × 100 = 41 × 100 = 0.5694 × 100 = 57%
84 − 12 72
6 © Springer Publishing Group, LLC
,6. A 59-year-old patient is diagnosed with acute biliary pancreatitis and noninfected pancreatic
necrosis on contrast enhanced computed tomography scan. The clinician plans to start a
course of prophylactic antibiotics. Which study design is appropriate to evaluate if antibiotics
prevent infection of noninfected pancreatic necrosis and decrease mortality?
a. Case-controlled study
b. Randomized controlled trial
*c. Systematic review and meta-analysis
d. Prospective cohort study
Rationale: Systematic review and meta-analysis of previous randomized control trials to
evaluate use of antibiotics in preventing infection of noninfected pancreatic necrosis and
decreasing mortality will be the appropriate study design in this case. Systematic reviews and
meta-analysis constitute the highest level of evidence (Level I according to the level of evidence
hierarchy pyramid).
Case-control studies are observational studies used to identify factors that may contribute to a
medical condition by comparing subjects who have that condition/disease (the “cases”) with
subjects who do not have the condition/disease but are otherwise similar (the “controls’). Case-
control studies require fewer resources but more time; also the evidence obtained is inferior to
other types of study designs (Level IV on the level of evidence hierarchy pyramid). Thus, this
will not be an appropriate study design in this case. A randomized control trial is a study design
with two study groups: the experimental group, where the intervention being studied is applied;
and the control group, where no intervention is used or a placebo is used instead. A randomized
control trial can be used in this case to evaluate if antibiotics prevent infection of noninfected
pancreatic necrosis and decrease mortality. However, it will be difficult to find matching controls
(with the same stage and severity of disease, and other matching demographic characteristics).
Also, the study will require significant time, as the two study groups will have to be followed up
for a significant period of time to see results. The evidence obtained from a single randomized
control trial will still be inferior (Level II on the level of evidence hierarchy pyramid) as
compared to that from meta-analysis and systematic review. A prospective cohort study follows
over time a group of similar individuals (cohorts) who differ with respect to certain factors under
study to determine how these factors affect rates of a certain outcome. Such studies are important
for research on the etiology of diseases. In a prospective cohort study, at the time of enrolling
subjects and collecting baseline exposure information, none of the subjects have developed any
of the outcomes of interest. After baseline information is collected, subjects are followed
“longitudinally,” i.e., over a period of time, usually for years, to determine if and when they
become diseased and whether their exposure status changes outcomes. Thus, this will not be an
appropriate study design to assess impact of an intervention.
© Springer Publishing Group, LLC 7
, 7. In a study, patients with arthritic knee pain were identified and randomly allocated to two
groups. One group of patients was given Ibuprofen for control of pain, and the other group
was given a placebo. According to the level of evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid, what level
of evidence will the results from this study generate??
a. Level VI
b. Level V
*c. Level II
d. Level III
Rationale: The study is a randomized control trial with two study groups: the experimental
group, where the intervention—in this case Ibuprofen—is given; and the control group, where a
placebo is used instead. Thus, this study will generate Level II evidence according to the level of
evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid. Level VI is the lowest level of evidence in the LOE
hierarchy pyramid and is made up of the opinions of respected authorities based on their clinical
experience or the opinions of an expert committee, including regulatory or legal opinions. Level
V evidence includes narrative literature reviews, case reports that are systematically obtained and
of verifiable quality, or program evaluation data. A quasi-experimental study, such as a
nonrandomized controlled single group pretest/posttest, time series or matched case-controlled
study, is considered Level III evidence.
8. In a randomized double-blind trial to compare a new analgesic with a placebo for control of
pain in arthritis, subjects report less pain while using the analgesic. The “p” value for the
difference in pain scores between the two regimes is 0.002. What conclusions can be drawn
from this study? Select all that apply.
*a. The drug is an effective analgesic.
*b. There is evidence that the drug reduces pain in arthritis.
c. The drug is better than currently prescribed analgesics.
d. There is a 2% probability that the difference in pain scores is obtained only due to
chance.
Rationale: The results of the study show a “p” value of 0.002 for difference in pain scores
between the two regimes. It can be concluded that the drug is an effective analgesic and provides
evidence that the drug reduces pain in arthritis. It is not possible to conclude whether the new
analgesic is better than the currently prescribed analgesics as the study does not compare it with
the current regime, but rather uses a placebo. The “p” value for difference in pain scores between
the two regimes is 0.002. This means there is a probability of 0.2% that this difference is
obtained only due to chance (and 99.8% probability that the difference is not due to chance).
8 © Springer Publishing Group, LLC
Protocols for Best Practice, 6e Boltz
Notes
1- The file is chapter after chapter.
2- We have shown you few pages sample.
3- The file contains all Appendix and Excel sheet
if it exists.
4- We have all what you need, we make update
at every time. There are many new editions
waiting you.
5- If you think you purchased the wrong file You
can contact us at every time, we can replace it
with true one.
Our email:
, Test Bank for
EVIDENCE-BASED GERIATRIC
NURSING PROTOCOLS FOR BEST
PRACTICE
Sixth Edition
Marie Boltz, PhD, RN, GNP-BC,
FGSA, FAAN
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Elizabeth A. Capezuti, PhD, RN,
FAAN
DeAnne Zwicker, DrNP, AGNP-BC
Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN
EDITORS
,ISBN: 978-0-8261-5187-2
,Copyright © 2021 Springer Publishing Company, LLC
All rights reserved.
This work is protected by U.S. copyright laws and is provided solely for the use of instructors in teaching
their courses and as an aid for student learning. No part of this publication may be sold, reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Springer Publishing Company,
LLC.
Springer Publishing Company, LLC
11 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
www.springerpub.com
ISBN: 978-0-8261-5187-2
The author and the publisher of this Work have made every effort to use sources believed to be reliable to
provide information that is accurate and compatible with the standards generally accepted at the time of
publication. The author and publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary
damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance on, the information contained
in this book. The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or
third-party Internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on
such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
© Springer Publishing Group, LLC 3
,Chapter 1: Developing and Evaluating Clinical Practice Guidelines: A
Systematic Approach
Multiple Choice Test Questions
1. Models of evidence-based practice (EBP) involve which of the following steps when
determining the process of developing protocols? Select all that apply.
*a. Develop an answerable question
b. Compare the evidence to what one feels to be true
*c. Critically appraise the evidence
*d. Locate the best evidence
Rationale: Evidence-based practice (EBP) involves five steps:
1. Develop an answerable question
2. Locate the best evidence
3. Critically appraise the evidence
4. Integrate evidence into practice using clinical expertise with attention to patient’s values and
perspectives; and
5. Evaluate the outcome(s)
Comparing the evidence to what one feels to be true is not a part of evidence-based practice.
2. When critically evaluating the evidence used in a study, which level of evidence is at the
bottom of the level of evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid?
*a. Opinions of respected authorities
b. Systematic reviews of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs)
c. Single experimental studies (Randomized Controlled Trials)
d. Nonexperimental studies
Rationale: The level of evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid highlights six levels of evidence.
Opinions of respected authorities, internationally or nationally known, based on their clinical
experience or the opinions of an expert committee, including regulatory or legal opinions, form
the lowest level of evidence (i.e., Level VI, at the bottom of the LOE pyramid). The highest level
of evidence, at the top of the pyramid, is comprised of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or
structured integrative reviews of evidence. Evidence judged to be at Level II comes from a single
randomized controlled trial. Nonexperimental studies are considered Level IV evidence.
4 © Springer Publishing Group, LLC
,3. Which of the following questions are based on the PICO format? Select all that apply.
*a. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, is hydrotherapy more effective than traditional
physiotherapy in relieving pain?
*b. For obese children, does the use of community recreation activities compared to
educational programs on lifestyle changes reduce the risk of diabetes mellitus?
*c. For deep vein thrombosis, is D-dimer testing or ultrasound more accurate for diagnosis?
d. Do adults who binge drink have higher mortality rates?
Rationale: PICO stands for:
P - Population or patient problem
I - Intervention
C - Comparison group or standard practice
O - Outcomes
PICO format is used to frame the research question and facilitate literature search. Each research
question is narrowed down to clearly state the population or the patient problem, the intervention
being studied, the comparison group, and the outcome measures. In the question “In patients
with osteoarthritis of the knee, is hydrotherapy more effective than traditional physiotherapy in
relieving pain?”, patients with osteoarthritis form the population, hydrotherapy is the
intervention that is being compared with traditional physiotherapy, and pain relief is the expected
outcome. In the question “For obese children, does the use of community recreation activities
compared to educational programs on lifestyle changes reduce the risk of diabetes mellitus?”,
obese children form the study population, use of community recreation services is the
intervention, being compared to educational programs on lifestyle changes, and reducing the risk
of diabetes mellitus is the expected outcome. In the question “For deep vein thrombosis, is D-
dimer testing or ultrasound more accurate for diagnosis?”, deep vein thrombosis is the patient
problem, D-dimer testing is the intervention, being compared to ultrasound for accuracy of
diagnosis, that is the expected outcome. The question “Do adults who binge drink have higher
mortality rates?” does not follow the PICO format. In this question, adults form the population
being studied, binge drinking is the intervention, and higher mortality rate is the outcome being
studied. However, the comparison group is not defined and stated in the question.
© Springer Publishing Group, LLC 5
,4. Which of the following statements regarding the AGREE II instrument are true? Select all
that apply.
*a. The AGREE instrument has 6 quality domains with 23 items divided among these
domains.
*b. Each domain is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly
agree” by a number of appraisers.
c. The six domain scores are aggregated into a single quality score.
d. The reliability of the AGREE instrument is decreased when each guideline is appraised by more
than one appraiser.
Rationale: The AGREE II instrument has six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder
involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, application, and editorial
independence. A total of 23 items are divided into these domains. Each domain is rated on a 4-
point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” by a number of appraisers.
Appraisers evaluate how well the guideline they are assessing meets the criteria of the six quality
domains. The six domain scores are independent and should not be aggregated into a single
quality score. The reliability of the AGREE instrument is increased, not decreased, when each
guideline is appraised by more than one appraiser.
5. Four appraisers give the following scores, as shown in the table below, for domain 1 (Scope
& Purpose) in the AGREE II instrument. What will be the scaled domain score?
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4
Appraiser 1 5 6 6 17
Appraiser 2 6 6 7 19
Appraiser 3 2 4 3 9
Appraiser 4 3 3 2 8
16 19 18 53
a. 53%
*b. 57%
c. 47%
d. 19%
Rationale:
Maximum possible score = 7 (strongly agree) × 3 (items) × 4 (appraisers) = 84
Minimum possible score = 1 (strongly disagree) × 3 (items) × 4 (appraisers) = 12
The scaled domain score will be:
Obtained score − Minimum possible score
Maximum possible score −Minimum possible score
53 − 12 × 100 = 41 × 100 = 0.5694 × 100 = 57%
84 − 12 72
6 © Springer Publishing Group, LLC
,6. A 59-year-old patient is diagnosed with acute biliary pancreatitis and noninfected pancreatic
necrosis on contrast enhanced computed tomography scan. The clinician plans to start a
course of prophylactic antibiotics. Which study design is appropriate to evaluate if antibiotics
prevent infection of noninfected pancreatic necrosis and decrease mortality?
a. Case-controlled study
b. Randomized controlled trial
*c. Systematic review and meta-analysis
d. Prospective cohort study
Rationale: Systematic review and meta-analysis of previous randomized control trials to
evaluate use of antibiotics in preventing infection of noninfected pancreatic necrosis and
decreasing mortality will be the appropriate study design in this case. Systematic reviews and
meta-analysis constitute the highest level of evidence (Level I according to the level of evidence
hierarchy pyramid).
Case-control studies are observational studies used to identify factors that may contribute to a
medical condition by comparing subjects who have that condition/disease (the “cases”) with
subjects who do not have the condition/disease but are otherwise similar (the “controls’). Case-
control studies require fewer resources but more time; also the evidence obtained is inferior to
other types of study designs (Level IV on the level of evidence hierarchy pyramid). Thus, this
will not be an appropriate study design in this case. A randomized control trial is a study design
with two study groups: the experimental group, where the intervention being studied is applied;
and the control group, where no intervention is used or a placebo is used instead. A randomized
control trial can be used in this case to evaluate if antibiotics prevent infection of noninfected
pancreatic necrosis and decrease mortality. However, it will be difficult to find matching controls
(with the same stage and severity of disease, and other matching demographic characteristics).
Also, the study will require significant time, as the two study groups will have to be followed up
for a significant period of time to see results. The evidence obtained from a single randomized
control trial will still be inferior (Level II on the level of evidence hierarchy pyramid) as
compared to that from meta-analysis and systematic review. A prospective cohort study follows
over time a group of similar individuals (cohorts) who differ with respect to certain factors under
study to determine how these factors affect rates of a certain outcome. Such studies are important
for research on the etiology of diseases. In a prospective cohort study, at the time of enrolling
subjects and collecting baseline exposure information, none of the subjects have developed any
of the outcomes of interest. After baseline information is collected, subjects are followed
“longitudinally,” i.e., over a period of time, usually for years, to determine if and when they
become diseased and whether their exposure status changes outcomes. Thus, this will not be an
appropriate study design to assess impact of an intervention.
© Springer Publishing Group, LLC 7
, 7. In a study, patients with arthritic knee pain were identified and randomly allocated to two
groups. One group of patients was given Ibuprofen for control of pain, and the other group
was given a placebo. According to the level of evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid, what level
of evidence will the results from this study generate??
a. Level VI
b. Level V
*c. Level II
d. Level III
Rationale: The study is a randomized control trial with two study groups: the experimental
group, where the intervention—in this case Ibuprofen—is given; and the control group, where a
placebo is used instead. Thus, this study will generate Level II evidence according to the level of
evidence (LOE) hierarchy pyramid. Level VI is the lowest level of evidence in the LOE
hierarchy pyramid and is made up of the opinions of respected authorities based on their clinical
experience or the opinions of an expert committee, including regulatory or legal opinions. Level
V evidence includes narrative literature reviews, case reports that are systematically obtained and
of verifiable quality, or program evaluation data. A quasi-experimental study, such as a
nonrandomized controlled single group pretest/posttest, time series or matched case-controlled
study, is considered Level III evidence.
8. In a randomized double-blind trial to compare a new analgesic with a placebo for control of
pain in arthritis, subjects report less pain while using the analgesic. The “p” value for the
difference in pain scores between the two regimes is 0.002. What conclusions can be drawn
from this study? Select all that apply.
*a. The drug is an effective analgesic.
*b. There is evidence that the drug reduces pain in arthritis.
c. The drug is better than currently prescribed analgesics.
d. There is a 2% probability that the difference in pain scores is obtained only due to
chance.
Rationale: The results of the study show a “p” value of 0.002 for difference in pain scores
between the two regimes. It can be concluded that the drug is an effective analgesic and provides
evidence that the drug reduces pain in arthritis. It is not possible to conclude whether the new
analgesic is better than the currently prescribed analgesics as the study does not compare it with
the current regime, but rather uses a placebo. The “p” value for difference in pain scores between
the two regimes is 0.002. This means there is a probability of 0.2% that this difference is
obtained only due to chance (and 99.8% probability that the difference is not due to chance).
8 © Springer Publishing Group, LLC
