| Course | NSG 660 Scholarly Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Evidence presentation slides |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 slides |
| Format | Slide deck with speaker notes, APA 7 references |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NSG 660 Unit 7
Do the Spirometers Work? A Five-Minute Huddle Presentation for Surgical Floor Nurses, With Speaker Notes and a One-Page Handout
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NSG 660: Scholarly Practice
Instructor Name
February 24, 2026
Slide 1: The Question
We hand every abdominal surgery patient a spirometer.
Half of them are still in the bag at discharge.
Does it matter?
Speaker notes: Open by repeating what several of you said at the desk: we chart "IS encouraged" every four hours and we are not sure the devices do anything. That is the whole question. I looked it up properly over the last few weeks, and I have one answer, one change I would like us to try, and two minutes for your objections. The formal version of the question is in the handout if anyone wants it.
Slide 2: What the Evidence Found
Across 12 trials and more than 1,800 patients after upper abdominal surgery: no evidence the spirometer prevents lung complications.
What does help: deep breathing, coughing, walking, and good pain control.
Speaker notes: The number that matters is the first line. It comes from a Cochrane review (do Nascimento Junior et al., 2014). The respiratory therapy society's own guideline agrees: it says the device alone is not recommended, and it strongly recommends the package of breathing, coughing, walking, and pain control (Restrepo et al., 2011). One more point in plain language: a trial that took the spirometer away completely after weight-loss surgery found no difference in oxygen levels or complications (Pantel et al., 2017). What this means for a shift: the time we spend chasing spirometer use is better spent getting patients walking and breathing deeply. Limits, in case anyone asks: most trials were in lower-risk patients, and none measured whether patients actually used the device. That is why I am not asking to remove it for everyone.
Slide 3: What Would Change Tomorrow
Every patient: 10 slow deep breaths and a supported cough, every waking hour.
Every patient: 3 walks on day one.
Spirometer only if flagged: COPD or asthma, smoker, 70 or over, or upper abdominal incision.
Speaker notes: Picture it as a card at the bedside. You teach the breathing once, with a pillow to hug for the cough, and you count walks instead of ticking "IS encouraged." The documentation changes from one checkbox to two numbers: walks since your last check, and whether the patient can show you the breathing. Patients with one of the four flags still get a device, because the one trial that compared approaches by risk found the device was the efficient choice for higher-risk patients (Hall et al., 1996).
Slide 4: The Ask
Support a three-month trial on this floor.
Sign up to teach the routine at one huddle on your shift.
Tell the council if the routine is not getting done.
Speaker notes: This is the slide that matters. I need three things from the room. First, support when the proposal goes to the order set committee next month; the committee listens when floor nurses say they want it. Second, one volunteer per shift to show the routine at a huddle. Third, honesty: if we take away the automatic spirometer and the breathing and walking do not happen, patients are worse off, and the council needs to know quickly so we can stop.
Slide 5: "This Is More Work for Us"
Counting walks takes about the same time as ticking a box.
Fewer devices to issue, set, and chase.
Speaker notes: This will be the first objection, and it is fair. The honest answer is that the new charting is two numbers instead of one checkbox, and most of us already walk patients. What goes away is issuing a device to every patient, setting the marker, and nagging about it. The trial will tell us whether total time goes up; if it does, that is a reason to change the plan.
Slide 6: "The Surgeons Want the Spirometer"
The device stays for higher-risk patients.
The surgeons sign the order set; we are asking them, not going around them.
Speaker notes: Some surgeons will prefer the device, and some patients will too. Nobody is being told the device is banned; patients who already have one keep it, and any surgeon can still order it. The proposal goes to the surgical order set committee with the evidence attached, which is where this decision belongs.
Handout (one page, left at the desk)
The ask: support a three-month trial of breathe, cough, and walk for all abdominal surgery patients, with the spirometer for flagged higher-risk patients only.
The measure: share of patients needing new oxygen after day one or diagnosed with pneumonia before discharge; baseline 7.7% (11 of 142 over three months).
Stop if: above 10% at three months, or the routine is not being done.
Sources: Cochrane review of spirometry after upper abdominal surgery (2014); AARC guideline on incentive spirometry (2011); randomized trials by Hall et al. (1996) and Pantel et al. (2017). Full references on the back.
Speaker notes: Leave copies at the desk and in the break room. The handout carries what the five minutes cannot: the baseline, the stopping rule, and the sources, so anyone who wants to check the evidence can.
References
do Nascimento Junior, P., Módolo, N. S., Andrade, S., Guimarães, M. M., Braz, L. G., & El Dib, R. (2014). Incentive spirometry for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications in upper abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), Article CD006058. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006058.pub3
Hall, J. C., Tarala, R. A., Tapper, J., & Hall, J. L. (1996). Prevention of respiratory complications after abdominal surgery: A randomised clinical trial. BMJ, 312(7024), 148-152. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7024.148
Pantel, H., Hwang, J., Brams, D., Schnelldorfer, T., & Nepomnayshy, D. (2017). Effect of incentive spirometry on postoperative hypoxemia and pulmonary complications after bariatric surgery: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surgery, 152(5), 422-428. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4981
Restrepo, R. D., Wettstein, R., Wittnebel, L., & Tracy, M. (2011). Incentive spirometry: 2011. Respiratory Care, 56(10), 1600-1604. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01471
The Herzing NSG 660 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 asks you to present evidence to colleagues in a short, practical format. Expect to state the question, summarize the evidence, explain what would change, make a clear request, answer likely objections and provide a handout. Students often ask how many slides fit a huddle and how much evidence to show. Five or six slides for five minutes is realistic. Give the bottom line from the strongest source rather than every study. Show exactly what nurses would do differently tomorrow. Anticipate objections you have heard on the floor. A one-page handout lets people read later. Speaker notes should carry the detail the slides leave out.
Inside the NSG 660 Unit 7 example
The deck opens with a familiar habit framed as a question, so nurses recognize the topic in seconds. The evidence slide gives one sentence and one number from the Cochrane review. The change slide lists concrete actions for the next shift. The ask slide requests support for a three-month trial with a review date. The objection slides answer the two concerns colleagues raised most, extra work and surgeon preference. The handout summarizes the ask and the evidence on one page and is left at the desk for night staff. Speaker notes name each slide's source and offer wording for the presenter. Because the deck ends with an ask rather than a lecture, it treats colleagues as decision makers.
NSG 660 Unit 7 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for an evidence presentation to colleagues usually covers the question, the evidence summary, the practical change, the request, handling of objections, the handout and speaker notes. The clear request and the objection slides draw the closest reading, because peers decide whether a change happens on the floor. Question points reward a familiar habit framed plainly. Evidence criteria look for an accurate bottom line with its source, not a list of studies. Change points go to specific actions a nurse could start tomorrow. The handout earns credit when it stands alone for staff who missed the huddle. Notes should carry sources and detail. Respecting the five-minute limit is expected. The Cochrane review supports the evidence slide.
NSG 660 Unit 7 help before you submit
Colleague presentations in Unit 7 often slip by showing too many studies for a huddle. Another frequent problem is no clear ask. Students often skip objections, which leaves the room unconvinced. The slide on what changes tomorrow stays abstract instead of naming ten breaths and a cough. The handout repeats the slides without the ask. Speaker notes are missing. The time limit is not respected. The surgeons' role in the order set is ignored. Night staff, who miss day huddles, are forgotten. Finally, end with an ask and answer the objections you have heard, because graders reward a presentation that could move a unit to try something new.
Get a NSG 660 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your NSG 660 classroom, with the finding the presentation should carry and the audience named. We write a custom example with a stated ask, one sentence on the evidence, two objections in their real wording, and speaker notes holding the limits. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More NSG 660 papers and BSN samples
- NSG 660 Unit 1: Practice question refinement
- NSG 660 Unit 2: Single study read-through
- NSG 660 Unit 3: Source credibility comparison
- NSG 660 Unit 4: Study comparison grid
- NSG 660 Unit 5: Clinical guideline trace
- NSG 660 Unit 6: Practice change proposal
- NSG 660 Unit 8: Scholarly reading portfolio
- NSG 421 Unit 7: End user change request
- NSG 423 Unit 7: Emerging trend impact statement
- NSG 633 Unit 7: Escalation chain trace
- NSG 120 Unit 7: Risk factor and prevention table
NSG 660 Unit 7 questions, answered
How many slides should the deck hold?
Fewer than most drafts contain. Where a slide count is specified, satisfy it with notes rather than with text on the slide, and where they leave it open, build for the minutes available and let the handout carry the rest. A deck needing twenty minutes for a five minute huddle was designed for a room that does not exist.
Should the presentation include the search and appraisal?
In the notes and the handout, not on the slides, unless the rubric asks for them explicitly. Colleagues need to know the evidence was read carefully, which one line and a reachable reference list establish. Spending the meeting on databases and inclusion criteria is the commonest way these presentations lose the audience they were built for.
Do I have to actually deliver it?
Only where the instructions require a recording or a live delivery, and then the performance is yours. What an example supplies is the structure, the wording of the ask and the objections, and the notes underneath them. Where a recording is required, the file that gets submitted has to be made by the person being graded on it.
Where can I find a free NSG 660 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full NSG 660 Unit 7 huddle presentation is free on this page, six slides with notes and a one-page handout. Send your own findings for a custom huddle deck.
How do I present research to nurses on my unit?
Keep it short, start with a habit they recognize, state the strongest source's bottom line, show what would change tomorrow, make a clear request and answer likely objections. This sample does that in six slides for a five-minute huddle.