| Course | NSG 324 Evidence Based Practice in Nursing |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Research, quality improvement and EBP comparison |
| Length | About 910 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | RN to BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NSG 324 Unit 2
Three Projects About the Same IV Catheters: Telling Research, Quality Improvement, and Evidence-Based Practice Apart
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NSG 324: Evidence Based Practice in Nursing
Instructor Name
January 28, 2026
Three Projects About the Same IV Catheters: Telling Research, Quality Improvement, and Evidence-Based Practice Apart
Why the Distinction Matters
Research, quality improvement, and evidence-based practice use overlapping vocabulary and often the same data. All three might count phlebitis, compare two groups, and report percentages. But they answer different questions and carry different obligations: whether a project needs review by an institutional review board, whether patients must consent, and what can be claimed from the results. Misclassifying a project can mean doing research without the protections research requires, or burdening a simple improvement with a review process designed for experiments. This paper uses three composite projects proposed in the same hospital in the same year, all about peripheral intravenous catheters, to show where the lines fall.
Project A: A Trial Comparing Replacement Strategies
A nurse scientist proposes randomly assigning adult patients on four units to have their peripheral catheters replaced either every 96 hours or only when clinically indicated, measuring phlebitis, infection, and cost, and publishing the results. This is research. The federal human subjects rule defines research, in section 46.102, as an organized, planned inquiry whose aim is knowledge that holds beyond the setting where it was gathered (Protection of Human Subjects, 2018). The Common Rule, as it is usually called, applies to this hospital because it accepts federal research funding. Randomization, a hypothesis, and the aim of producing findings that apply beyond this hospital make the design systematic and the purpose generalizable. The project requires review by the institutional review board before it begins, a decision about informed consent or a justified waiver, and a data safety plan. Patients are assigned to a strategy by chance, not by their nurse's judgment, which is precisely why the protections exist.
Project B: Improving Site Assessment Documentation
The unit's audit shows that peripheral catheter sites are documented as assessed on only 62% of shifts. The unit manager and two staff nurses test a sequence of small changes, one cycle at a time: adding the assessment to the shift checklist, a reminder at handoff, and a weekly feedback chart, with the goal of reaching 90%. This is quality improvement. Its purpose is to make an accepted practice happen reliably here, not to learn whether the practice works. The changes are small, adjusted based on local data, and aimed at this unit's performance. Quality improvement still has ethical obligations: it can burden or harm patients, uses their data, and must be overseen, even though it usually does not need the same review as research (Lynn et al., 2007). The hospital's process is for the project lead to submit a short form to the quality office, which confirms that it is improvement and not research.
Project C: Changing the Replacement Policy
The practice council reviews the existing evidence on replacement strategies, including a systematic review of randomized trials that found no clear difference in phlebitis or bloodstream infection between clinically indicated and routine replacement (Webster et al., 2019). The council recommends changing the policy to replacement when clinically indicated, with site assessment every shift, and plans to monitor phlebitis rates for six months after the change. This is evidence-based practice. Its question is not whether the strategy works, which the trials already addressed, but whether the existing evidence, combined with clinical expertise and patient preferences, supports changing practice here (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023). The monitoring after the change uses quality improvement methods, a common overlap.
The Three Side by Side
The table compares the projects on the features that decide their obligations.
| Feature | Project A: research | Project B: quality improvement | Project C: evidence-based practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question | Which strategy produces less harm? | How do we make assessment documentation reliable here? | Does existing evidence support changing our policy? |
| Knowledge produced | New, intended to apply elsewhere | Local, about this unit's performance | A local decision based on existing knowledge |
| Design | Randomized, fixed protocol | Iterative cycles, changed as data come in | Appraisal of evidence, then implementation and monitoring |
| Oversight | Institutional review board | Quality office determination | Practice council and policy committee |
| Patient consent | Required or formally waived | Generally not individual consent | Generally not individual consent; policy change |
| Claims allowed | Generalizable conclusions within limits | This unit's performance improved or not | This hospital's outcomes after the change |
The Gray Zone
Two situations are harder. First, the practice council wants to present Project C at a nursing conference. Intent to publish does not by itself turn improvement or evidence-based practice into research; what matters is whether the activity was designed to produce generalizable knowledge. Still, many hospitals, including this one, require a determination from the review board before results are shared outside the organization, and the council will request one. Second, if the council decided to test the new policy on two units while keeping the old one on two others and compare them, the project would move toward research, because patients on different units would receive different care in order to answer a question about effectiveness. The council should either implement the change everywhere or submit the comparison for review.
The practical test I would use on the unit is to ask three questions. Is this project trying to find out whether something works, or to make a known practice happen? Would any patient receive different care than they otherwise would in order to answer the question? And who outside this hospital is meant to learn from the results? When the answers point toward research, the project goes to the review board before it starts.
Why This Matters to a Staff Nurse
Staff nurses are often asked to collect data for projects of all three kinds, sometimes without being told which kind it is. Knowing the difference allows a nurse to ask whether a project has the right review before participating, and to recognize when a unit's improvement effort has quietly become an experiment. It also shapes what a nurse can honestly say afterward. A unit that improved its documentation rate can say that its documentation improved; it cannot say that assessment prevents phlebitis, because the project was never designed to show that. Matching the claim to the kind of project is part of doing each one well.
References
Lynn, J., Baily, M. A., Bottrell, M., Jennings, B., Levine, R. J., Davidoff, F., Casarett, D., Corrigan, J., Fox, E., Wynia, M. K., Agich, G. J., O'Kane, M., Speroff, T., Schyve, P., Batalden, P., Tunis, S., Berlinger, N., Cronenwett, L., Fitzmaurice, J. M., ... James, B. (2007). The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146(9), 666-673. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-9-200705010-00155
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. ยง 46.102 (2018).
Webster, J., Osborne, S., Rickard, C. M., & Marsh, N. (2019). Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), Article CD007798. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub5
Reading the NSG 324 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 asks you to distinguish research, quality improvement and evidence-based practice. Expect to explain why the distinction matters, describe an example of each, compare them on purpose, methods, generalizability and oversight, address gray areas and explain the relevance for staff nurses. Many versions ask why they cannot be told apart by method alone and what obligations differ. Check whether your section expects examples from your setting. Methods overlap, since all three may collect data; purpose and intended use decide the category. Research aims at generalizable knowledge and needs review board oversight. Quality improvement aims at local improvement. Evidence-based practice applies existing evidence. Gray areas, such as publishing QI results, need thought.
How this NSG 324 Unit 2 example is built
The paper opens by explaining that the three share vocabulary but differ in obligations. Three project sections use the same IV catheter topic, which isolates the differences. Each project is described with its purpose, methods and oversight. The comparison table sets the projects side by side on the features that decide category. The gray zone section works through two harder cases, such as a QI project later presented publicly. The final section explains what staff nurses should ask when invited to collect data, such as whether consent or review is needed. Using one topic for all three projects is the paper's key move, since it shows the category depends on purpose rather than subject.
NSG 324 Unit 2 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for this comparison typically covers the rationale for the distinction, accurate description of each type, the comparison of features, handling of gray areas and relevance to practice. Classification is where marks are won or lost: purpose and oversight must match the category assigned. Description points reward clear examples. Comparison criteria look for purpose, generalizability, review and consent. Gray area discussion often lifts a paper into the top band. Relevance earns credit for practical guidance for staff nurses. A table helps the comparison. Using one topic across all three examples is often credited for clarity. Lynn and colleagues' report on the ethics of quality improvement belongs in the APA 7 list, with Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt.
Common NSG 324 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Comparison papers in Unit 2 commonly lose points by sorting projects by method, such as calling anything with data collection research. Another frequent problem is describing each type in general terms without examples. Students often miss that intent to generalize triggers research oversight. Gray areas are ignored. Evidence-based practice is confused with quality improvement. The relevance for staff nurses is missing. The comparison table lacks the features that decide category. Different topics for each project make differences harder to see. Finally, address what happens when a QI project is later published, because graders reward awareness that publication intent can change a project's obligations.
Get a NSG 324 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric from your NSG 324 classroom, plus any projects from your own setting you want classified. We write a custom example that separates the three by purpose and works through a boundary case, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NSG 324 papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NSG 324 Unit 1: Clinical question from practice
- NSG 324 Unit 3: Point-of-care evidence search
- NSG 324 Unit 4: Evidence appraisal
- NSG 324 Unit 5: Single research article critique
- NSG 324 Unit 6: EBP model applied to a unit change
- NSG 324 Unit 7: Barriers and facilitators on one unit
- NSG 324 Unit 8: Evidence presented to the unit
- NSG 323 Unit 2: Family home visit assessment
- NU 305 Unit 2: Legal accountability analysis
- NU 345 Unit 2: Functional health pattern assessment
- NU 476 Unit 2: Practice gap evidenced at the site
NSG 324 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why can I not tell them apart by method?
Because the methods are shared. All three can involve collecting data, measuring before and after, and using statistics. What separates them is intent: whether you are producing knowledge for others, improving something here, or applying existing evidence to a decision. Papers that distinguish by technique end up describing the same activity three times.
What obligations differ between them?
Review and consent mainly. Research involving human participants generally requires formal review and often consent; quality improvement usually does not, though organizations vary and some require a determination; applying known findings to care generally requires neither. Getting this wrong in either direction causes real problems, which is why the classification is not merely academic.
What if my project could be two of them?
Say so and argue where it belongs. A quality improvement project designed so its findings would apply elsewhere starts to look like research, and that shift brings obligations with it. Working through a genuine boundary case demonstrates far more understanding than three examples that each fit perfectly, and faculty reward it.
Where can I find a free NSG 324 Unit 2 sample paper?
Read the complete NSG 324 Unit 2 research, QI and EBP comparison here at no charge, three IV catheter projects compared side by side. A comparison built on projects from your setting can be prepared on request.
What is the difference between research, QI and evidence-based practice?
Research seeks new generalizable knowledge and needs review board oversight; quality improvement improves a local process; evidence-based practice applies existing evidence to care. This sample shows all three using the same IV catheter topic.