| Course | NSG 324 Evidence Based Practice in Nursing |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Evidence presentation slides |
| Length | About 790 words, 8 slides |
| Format | Slide deck with speaker notes, APA 7 references |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | RN to BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NSG 324 Unit 8
Fewer Needle Sticks, Same Safety: The Evidence on Replacing IVs When Needed, Presented to Our Unit
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NSG 324: Evidence Based Practice in Nursing
Instructor Name
March 11, 2026
Slide 1: The 4 a.m. Restart
A working IV, a clean site, a patient with hard veins, and a policy that says it is day four.
Three attempts, an ultrasound nurse called in, and a patient in tears.
Some of us restart; some of us leave it. Both groups are trying to protect the patient.
Speaker notes: Most of you have lived this. I am starting here because this is where the question came from: two of our own nurses handling the same situation in opposite ways, both for good reasons. I am not here to say anyone was wrong. I am here to show what the research says about which choice protects patients better.
Slide 2: The Question We Asked
For adult inpatients: does replacing an IV only when there is a reason, with a site check every shift, cause more phlebitis or bloodstream infection than replacing it at 96 hours?
Speaker notes: Notice the words with a site check every shift. That is part of the question, and it will be part of the answer. Nobody is proposing that we stop looking at IV sites.
Slide 3: What the Best Evidence Shows
A Cochrane review pooling randomized trials: phlebitis and bloodstream infection rates came out about even across the two approaches; lower cost when IVs are replaced only as needed (Webster et al., 2019).
The largest trial, more than 3,000 patients in three hospitals: phlebitis about 7% in both groups (Rickard et al., 2012).
The 2024 national infusion nursing standards now favor removal based on assessment, not the calendar (Nickel et al., 2024).
Speaker notes: I have kept this to three sources because they are the ones that carry the argument. The review combines the trials, the biggest trial is the one I read closely, and the standards are what surveyors and our educators work from. All three point the same way.
Slide 4: What About Infection?
Bloodstream infections from peripheral IVs are rare in every study, in both groups.
The research cannot rule out a very small difference; it does show no noticeable increase.
The site check every shift is our safety net, and it stays.
Speaker notes: This is the question I expect most of you are asking, and it is the right one. I want to be straight about it. The trials are large, but infections are so uncommon that no trial can prove the rate is exactly the same. What they show is that leaving a healthy IV in place, while checking it, did not produce a noticeable rise. That is why the site assessment is not optional in this proposal.
Slide 5: What Would Change on Our Shift
No more restarts because of dwell time alone.
Site assessment documented every shift, using the phlebitis scale already in the record.
Take the IV out once therapy ends, or sooner for redness, pain, swelling, leaking, or it stops flushing.
Unchanged: dressing changes, tubing changes, and removal of any IV placed in an emergency without full technique.
Speaker notes: In practice, you would do less, not more. The one thing that becomes more important is the site check, which most of you already do. The emergency-placed IVs stay on the short timeline because they were placed without full sterile technique; that part of the old guideline still stands.
Slide 6: What It Means for Patients
Fewer needle sticks, especially for patients with difficult veins.
Fewer calls to the vascular access team at night.
Less time for us spent on restarts that the evidence says do not help.
Speaker notes: For patients like the woman in the first slide, this is the difference between three painful attempts and none. For us, it frees time we currently spend on a task that does not make patients safer.
Slide 7: How We Would Know It Is Working
Phlebitis rate, from the monthly audit we already do, compared with the past six months.
Site assessment documented on at least 90% of shifts.
Any peripheral IV bloodstream infection reviewed individually with infection prevention.
Speaker notes: If phlebitis rises, we will see it within a few months and can go back. That is the benefit of measuring: we are not taking this on faith.
Slide 8: What We Are Asking Today
Your questions and concerns, now or on the sheet at the station this week.
The practice council votes on the proposal on March 25.
Until then, the current policy stands.
Speaker notes: I am asking for your input before the vote, not after. If you see a problem with this that I have missed, you know this unit and these patients, and I want to hear it. Until the council decides, please keep following the 96-hour policy.
References
Nickel, B., Gorski, L., Kleidon, T., Kyes, A., DeVries, M., Keogh, S., Meyer, B., Sarver, M. J., Crickman, R., Ong, J., Clare, S., & Hagle, M. E. (2024). Infusion therapy standards of practice, 9th edition. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 47(1S), S1-S285. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000532
Rickard, C. M., Webster, J., Wallis, M. C., Marsh, N., McGrail, M. R., French, V., Foster, L., Gallagher, P., Gowardman, J. R., Zhang, L., McClymont, A., & Whitby, M. (2012). Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: A randomised controlled equivalence trial. The Lancet, 380(9847), 1066-1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4
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
What the NSG 324 Unit 8 instructions ask for
Unit 8 asks you to present evidence on your clinical question to colleagues on your unit. Expect to open with a relatable problem, state the question, summarize the best evidence, address likely concerns, explain what would change, describe benefits for patients, set measures and invite input. Many versions ask how this differs from presenting to faculty, how much evidence to show and what questions to prepare for. Check your section's slide limit and whether speaker notes are required. Colleagues want to know what changes for them and whether it is safe, not every study detail. Address the main worry, here infection, directly. Keep each slide to one message. Ask for concerns, since staff buy-in decides whether the change will happen.
Inside the NSG 324 Unit 8 example
The deck opens with a scene every night nurse knows, which earns attention before any data. The question slide states it plainly. The evidence slide summarizes the Cochrane review in one or two lines. The infection slide answers the concern most staff will raise. The change slide describes what nurses would do differently. The patient slide names fewer needle sticks. The measurement slide uses an audit the unit already does. The final slide asks for questions in person or on a sheet at the station. Speaker notes give detail behind each slide. The deck is short and practical, which suits a staff meeting, and it treats colleagues as partners in deciding whether to change.
Where the points sit in the NSG 324 Unit 8 rubric
Herzing's rubric for an evidence presentation usually covers audience fit, the clinical question, accuracy of evidence, attention to concerns, practical implications, measurement and engagement. Audience fit and accuracy are read together, since graders want evidence translated for staff without distortion. Question points reward a plain statement. Concern criteria look for the main worry addressed directly. Implication points go to what changes on the shift. Measurement earns credit when it uses existing data. Engagement should invite questions. Slide design and speaker notes count toward presentation. Graders also look for a clear request, such as feedback by a date, on the final slide. The Cochrane review by Webster and colleagues and Rickard's trial belong in the APA 7 list.
Common NSG 324 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Evidence presentations in Unit 8 often slip by showing study tables and statistics that staff cannot use at a meeting. Another frequent problem is avoiding the main concern, such as infection. Students often present to colleagues as if to faculty. What changes on the shift is unclear. Measurement relies on new data collection. The deck ends without asking for input. Speaker notes are missing. Slides carry too much text. Finally, start with a scene staff recognize, because graders reward a presentation that connects evidence to daily work and earns attention before showing numbers. Another weak spot is leaving out what happens if phlebitis rises, which staff will want to know before supporting a change.
Get a NSG 324 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 8 instructions and the rubric from your NSG 324 classroom, plus your evidence and the unit you would present to. We write a custom example built for colleagues, with the burden named and a specific ask, 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 2: Research, quality improvement and EBP distinguished
- 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 323 Unit 8: Levels of prevention applied to one problem
- NU 305 Unit 8: Self-assessment against BSN competencies
- NU 345 Unit 8: One health issue across the lifespan
- NU 476 Unit 8: Sustainability and handover plan
NSG 324 Unit 8 questions, answered
How is this different from presenting to faculty?
The audience can check you against their own shift. Nurses on the unit know what the practice actually looks like, what was tried before and what the obstacles are, so a presentation that glosses over any of it loses them immediately. They also care about what changes for them rather than about how the evidence was assembled.
How much evidence should I show?
Two or three findings, chosen for force. A room of colleagues will not read a table of studies and does not need one; they need to know that the finding is solid and that it applies to patients like theirs. Say how strong the evidence is in plain terms and put the detail in a handout for anybody who wants it.
What question should I prepare for?
Whether it applies to their patients. It is the first thing an experienced nurse asks and it is usually a fair question, because studies run in different settings with different populations. Know what the studies' patients looked like, say where they resemble yours and where they do not, and be willing to answer that the fit is imperfect.
Where can I find a free NSG 324 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page holds the whole NSG 324 Unit 8 IV replacement deck free, eight slides with speaker notes. A presentation on your own evidence and unit can be written on request.
How do I present evidence to nursing staff?
Start with a familiar problem, state the question, give the bottom line from the best evidence, answer the main concern, say what would change on the shift and ask for input. This sample does that in eight slides.