Students this project will allow you to formulate and hypothetically develop your own research project. The purpose
of this project is for the student to follow all of the different steps in a research project on an already published
article and presented as a poster presentation. A poster session or poster presentation is the presentation of research
information by an individual or representatives of research teams at a congress or conference with an academic or
professional focus. The work is usually peer reviewed. Poster sessions are particularly prominent at scientific
conferences such as medical congresses.
Students will select a nursing research already published and following the article information you will create a
poster presentation that include the below information:
The outline of the poster should include the following tabs (minimum requirements)
-Title of Project
-Problem Statement: what is the problem that needs fixing?
-Purpose of the Project
-Methodology (Qualitative vs. Quantitative)
-Steps in implementing your project
Results (Pretend results)
I have attached an example of a poster presentation for guidance. The due date for the poster presentation is WEEK
13. Please feel free to be artistic and provide graphs and data. You are welcome to use any poster template. Please
submit it via turn it in.
Complete in all
respects; reflects all
understanding of the
topic(s) and issue(s)
through analysis of
the issue (s)
the issue(s) identified
and the concept(s)
evidence; presents a
balanced and critical
view; interpretation is
Very Good 3
Complete in most
the topic(s) and
of most of the
with reasons and
presents a fairly
the topic(s) and
analysis of some
of the issue(s)
does not reflect
the topic(s) and
analysis of the
Makes little or no
with few reasons
argument is onesided and not
both reasonable and
clearly supported by
Minimal spelling and
Uses APA guidelines
consistently to cite
supported by the
supported by the
with little, if any,
support from the
to cite sources
Does not use
Efficacy of the Implementation of Early Severe Sepsis Strategies
on a Medical Surgical Unit
Jorge Hirigoyen ARNP-BC
❖Worldwide there are approximately 18 million new cases of
sepsis each year, with a mortality rate range estimated about 30%
❖Sepsis is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.
❖Organ failure occurred in 19.1 % of sepsis patients from 1979 to
1989 and 30.2% from 1990 to 2000.
❖Severe sepsis as the primary diagnosis increased from 326,000
in 2000 to 727,000 in 2008.
❖Severe sepsis as the secondary diagnosis increased from
621,000 in 2000 to 1,141,000 in 2008.
❖About 24 % of patients who develop severe sepsis or septic
shock will do so in a Medical-Surgical unit.
Significance to Nursing
❖ Nurses early sepsis recognition and management.
❖ Improve sepsis mortality and morbidity rates.
❖ Improve awareness about the subject of sepsis in medical
❖ Potential Core Measure.
❖ Generate policy changes beyond the local municipal
❖Severe sepsis strikes about 750,000 Americans annually
28%-50% of these people die., more U.S. deaths than from prostate
cancer, breast cancer and AIDS combined
❖Sepsis is on the rise due to: Aging population, increased
longevity of people with chronic diseases, spread of antibioticresistant organisms, increase in invasive procedures, broader use of
immunosuppressive and chemotherapeutic agents
Phase 1: Approval
❖Generate administration and management support for the project: Project proposal was
presented to Unit Manager, Director and Hospital Nursing Council for approval. Project was
also presented to Medical Executive Committee for approval.
❖Education was performed to all medical surgical nurses on the topic of sepsis in the pilot
unit. All participating staff received a 30-45 minutes education program, including a
PowerPoint presentation and education flyers regarding the study.
Phase 2: Development of Bundle
❖ A sepsis bundle (Tool, Algorithm and Order Set) was developed for medical surgical units
following the recommendations of the SSC 2012.
❖The sensitivity and specificity of a severe sepsis tool was calculated. Total number of
admissions from pilot unit during a three month period was collected. Admitted patients with
a discharge diagnosis of sepsis was attained. All patients that had at least one positive
screening for severe sepsis was calculated. Those patients with a discharge diagnosis of
sepsis but screened negative for sepsis was also calculated. The results yielded the sensitivity
and specificity of the tool by utilizing a 2x2 designs and receiver operating curve.
Phase 3: Implementation
❖Decrease hospital length of stay: retrospective data collection will be conducted on all
patients who have screened positive for sepsis during a three month period prior from
implementation with focus on hospital length of stay. The same method will be employ after
the implementation of the new sepsis bundle. With again focus on hospital length of stay. An
independent t-test will be utilized to obtain results and measure outcome.
❖Decrease septic patients transfer to higher level of care: retrospective study will be
conducted on all patients who have screened positive for severe sepsis during a three month
period with focus on transfers to higher level of care. The same method will be utilized after
the implementation of the new algorithm and sepsis bundle. With focus on transfer to higher
level of care on all patients that screen positive for severe sepsis. A chi-square will be utilized
to obtain results and measure outcome.
Phase 4: Data Analysis
❖Data Analysis and Presentation of Outcomes to Stakeholders.
Phase 5: Evaluation
❖Evaluation of Project.
The problem is that no sepsis bundles exists for the identification
and treatment of septic patients on medical surgical units.
The purpose of this pilot study is to develop and implement a
severe sepsis bundle on a medical surgical unit to determine if
there is a reduction in hospital length of stay and transfer to higher
level of care.
❖Quasi Experimental, non-randomized one group pre test-posttest design.
❖ Retrospective review of the data
❖It is the intent that the implementation of a severe
sepsis bundle on a medical surgical unit will
decrease the hospital length of stay and transfer of
septic patients to higher level of care.
❖Implementation of this project will allow for further
exploration of sepsis work in medical surgical
wards. Results of the capstone project are pending
Anderson, R. & Schmidt, R. (2010). Clinical biomarkers in sepsis.
Front Bioscience (Elite Edition), 2(5), 504-520.
Carter, C. (2007). Implementing the severe sepsis care bundles
outside the ICU by outreach. Nursing Critical Care, 12(5), 225-230.
Gyang, E., Shieh, L., Forsey, L., & Maggio, P. (2011). A simple
screening tool for the early identification of sepsis in a non-icu
setting. Poster session presented at: Surgical infection society. 31st
Annual Conference of the Surgical Infection Society. May 11-14,
Palm Beach, Fl.
Hall, M. J., Williams, S. J., DeFrances, C, J., & Golosinskiy, A.
(2011). Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: A challenge for
patients and hospitals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Health Statistics, 62, Retrieved from:
Sankar, V. & Webster, N. R. (2013). Clinical application of sepsis
biomarkers. Journal of Anesthesia, 27, 269-283.
Sample Size: Power Analysis
❖Generate administration and management support for the project
❖Educate medical surgical nurses on the topic of sepsis
❖Develop and implement a severe sepsis bundle (Tool, Algorithm,
Order Set) for medical surgical units
❖Evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a severe sepsis
❖Decrease septic patients hospital length of
❖Decrease septic patients transfer to higher level
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012
❖ Sepsis Hospital Length of Stay
❖ Level of significance (α error probability), power (1-β error
probability) and effect size.
❖ Cohen’s recommendation
❖ α value was set at 0.05
❖ β value was set at 0.95.
❖ Anticipated effect size (Cohen’s d) was set as medium
effect, 6% of the variance: d=0.5
❖ Transfers to Higher level of Care
❖ Cramer’s V table chi-square
❖ α value was set at 0.05
❖ power set at 0.80
❖ V statistics set at 0.30
Singer, M. (2013). Biomarkers in sepsis. Current Opinion in
Pulmonary Medicine, 19(00), 1-5.
Tazbir, J. (2012). Early recognition and treatment of sepsis in the
medical-surgical setting. Medical Surgical Nursing, 21(4), 205-208.
Tromp, M., Tijan, D. H. T., van Zanten, A. R. H., Gielen-Wiffels, S.
E. M., Goekoop, G. J. D., Van den Boogaad, M., Wallenborg, C.
M., Biemond-Moeniralam, H. S., & Pickkers, P. (2011). The
effects of implementation of the surviving sepsis campaign in the
Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 69(6), 292-298.
Purchase answer to see full