NU 760 Unit 3 Annotated Bibliography Example

Course	NU 760 Scholarship for Nursing Practice
Unit	Unit 3
Paper type	Annotated bibliography
Length	About 820 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Herzing University
Program	MSN
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NU 760 Unit 3

Annotated Bibliography: Prophylactic Silicone Foam Dressings to Prevent Sacral Pressure Injuries in Critically Ill Adults

Student Name

Department of Nursing, Herzing University

NU 760: Scholarship for Nursing Practice

Instructor Name

February 4, 2026

What this page is doingThe title names the intervention, the anatomical site and the population, so every entry below can be judged against the same question. An annotated bibliography is graded most closely on what each source contributes to the writer's own question, which needs to be stated precisely first.

Annotated Bibliography: Prophylactic Silicone Foam Dressings to Prevent Sacral Pressure Injuries in Critically Ill Adults

The Question These Entries Serve

In adults in an intensive care unit (P), does applying a prophylactic multilayer soft silicone foam dressing to the sacrum on admission (I), compared with standard pressure injury prevention alone (C), reduce the incidence of sacral pressure injuries during the ICU stay (O)? The question matters for a 20-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU whose hospital-acquired sacral pressure injury rate was 4.2 per 100 admissions last year, well above its target. Each entry below reports the study, judges it on something specific, and states what it contributes to this question.

Santamaria et al. (2015)

What it did and found. A randomized controlled trial, the Border trial, in a large Australian hospital enrolled critically ill trauma patients in the emergency department and randomized them either to usual care or to multilayer soft silicone foam dressings placed over the sacrum and both heels on arrival and kept in place through the ICU stay. The intervention group developed significantly fewer sacral and heel pressure injuries than the control group, with incidence of roughly 3% compared with about 13% (Santamaria et al., 2015).

Judgment. Randomization at the patient level and application from the emergency department strengthen the causal claim. Two specific weaknesses matter. Outcome assessment was not blinded, because the dressing was visible, and pressure injury staging involves judgment that could be influenced by knowing the group. And trauma patients, often younger and immobilized by injury, differ from medical ICU patients with sepsis or respiratory failure, who make up most of our unit.

Contribution. This is the strongest single piece of evidence that the dressing, not simply heightened attention, reduces injuries, but it supports adoption for our medical patients only by extension.

Kalowes et al. (2016)

What it did and found. A randomized controlled trial in the ICUs of a single US medical center randomized adult patients at admission to a five-layer soft silicone foam sacral dressing plus standard prevention or standard prevention alone. Sacral pressure injuries were fewer in the dressing group, although the number of events in both groups was small (Kalowes et al., 2016).

Judgment. The trial was conducted in a US ICU population closer to ours than the Border trial. Its main weakness is the small number of events, which makes the estimate of effect imprecise; a difference of a few injuries in each direction would change the result considerably. As with the first trial, assessors could see the dressings.

Contribution. It supports transfer of the Border trial's finding to a mixed ICU population, which is our population. It does not tell us how large the effect is likely to be with confidence.

Chaiken (2012)

What it did and found. A before-and-after quality improvement project in one ICU introduced a silicone border foam sacral dressing for patients at risk and compared sacral pressure ulcer prevalence before and after. Prevalence fell substantially after the dressing was introduced (Chaiken, 2012).

Judgment. Without a concurrent control group, the decrease cannot be attributed to the dressing alone; the project coincided with increased staff attention to pressure injuries, and prevalence surveys can vary with the timing of audits. It is the weakest design in this set.

Contribution. Its value to our question is practical rather than causal: it describes how a dressing program was introduced on a working unit, including which patients received it and how often dressings were changed, which will inform our implementation plan.

Moore and Webster (2018)

What it did and found. A Cochrane systematic review covering preventive dressings, creams, and other topical products pooled the randomized trials and concluded that silicone foam dressings applied to at-risk areas may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers, rating the certainty of evidence as low (Moore & Webster, 2018).

Judgment. The review's methods are rigorous, and the low certainty rating reflects the included trials' risk of bias, mainly unblinded outcome assessment, and imprecision, not a flaw in the review.

Contribution. This review is the most important check on the individual trials: it tells us that the evidence points consistently toward benefit but is not strong enough to be certain of the size of the effect. For our unit, it supports a trial of the dressing with careful measurement rather than an assumption that it will produce the reductions seen in the Border trial.

What this page is doingEach annotation does three jobs: it reports the study in the writer's own words, judges it on a named weakness rather than on limitations in general, and says what it contributes to this writer's question. The third movement is the one graders read most closely.

What the Set Contributes Together

Taken together, two randomized trials and a systematic review point toward benefit, with low certainty about the size of the effect, and a before-and-after report shows that the intervention can be implemented on a working unit. None of the studies measured the cost of dressings against the cost of pressure injuries in a setting like ours, and none reported skin harm from the dressings in detail. The next stage of the project will look specifically for cost and adverse-effect data before an implementation plan is written.

References

Chaiken, N. (2012). Reduction of sacral pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit using a silicone border foam dressing. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 39(2), 143-145. https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0b013e318246400c

Kalowes, P., Messina, V., & Li, M. (2016). Five-layered soft silicone foam dressing to prevent pressure ulcers in the intensive care unit. American Journal of Critical Care, 25(6), e108-e119. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2016875

Moore, Z. E. H., & Webster, J. (2018). Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (12), Article CD009362. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009362.pub3

Santamaria, N., Gerdtz, M., Sage, S., McCann, J., Freeman, A., Vassiliou, T., De Vincentis, S., Ng, A. W., Manias, E., Liu, W., & Knott, J. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: The border trial. International Wound Journal, 12(3), 302-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12101

The Herzing NU 760 Unit 3 instructions

In Unit 3 you prepare an annotated bibliography of sources for your clinical question. Each entry gives the full APA 7 reference followed by an annotation that summarizes the source, evaluates its quality and explains its relevance to your question. Many versions ask for a minimum number of sources, often five or more, and a mix of research designs. Some ask for a brief synthesis at the end. Check the expected length of each annotation, since sections vary from one paragraph to a full page. Include sources that complicate your position as well as those that support it, because a balanced set is more useful for later units. Use primary research where possible, and include a systematic review if one exists for your topic.

How the NU 760 Unit 3 example is put together

The bibliography opens with the question, which tells the reader what each annotation is judged against. Every entry uses three labeled parts, which keeps them consistent and makes comparison easy. The trial entries describe design, sample, intervention and main result in a few sentences, then weigh limitations such as single-center enrollment. The before-and-after report is included but rated as weaker evidence, with the reason stated. The Cochrane entry explains what the pooled result says and how certain it is. The closing section draws the entries together, saying where they agree and how confident a unit could be in adopting the dressing. The entries are ordered by design, so the strongest evidence is easy to find.

NU 760 Unit 3 rubric: what full points look like

Herzing grades an annotated bibliography on the number and quality of sources, the accuracy of summaries, the critical evaluation, the relevance to the question, and APA 7 formatting. Source criteria reward current, peer-reviewed research appropriate to the question. Summary points require accurate description of design, sample and findings. Evaluation is often weighted most heavily and gives full credit when each annotation judges strengths and limitations rather than repeating the abstract. Relevance points go to entries that explain how the source answers or complicates the question. The formatting criterion is strict for this assignment, covering hanging indents, alphabetical order where required, italics and DOIs in each reference. A synthesis, if requested, is scored on comparison across sources.

Common NU 760 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Many Unit 3 annotations copy or paraphrase the abstract without evaluating the study. Another common problem is leaving out relevance, so the reader never learns how the source helps answer the question. Students also include only supportive studies, which weakens later appraisal. Reference formatting errors are frequent in this assignment, especially missing DOIs and incorrect italics. Annotations that run far over or under the expected length lose points. Mixing in non-scholarly sources without justification is a risk. Some students label quality without saying why. Finally, check that each study is described accurately, since graders often know the landmark trials on common topics like pressure injury prevention and will notice errors in sample size or findings.

Get a NU 760 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Send the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric from your NU 760 classroom, plus your question and the sources your search retained. We write a custom example with summary, appraisal and relevance in every entry, at the depth this rubric expects, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.

More NU 760 papers and MSN samples

NU 760 Unit 3 questions, answered

How is an annotation different from an abstract?

An abstract reports what the authors say; an annotation adds your judgment and your use. Two of the three movements are yours, and they are where the marks are. If your entry could have been assembled without reading past the abstract, it will read that way to somebody who has assessed many of these.

How long should each entry be?

Check the instructions, but consistency matters more than the exact count. A set where three entries run to a paragraph and the rest to two lines tells a reader which sources you actually read. Aim for even depth, and if a study genuinely deserves less space, say why rather than letting the length carry the message.

Should I include studies that contradict my position?

Yes, and annotate them at the same standard. A bibliography where every source supports the writer suggests the search was steered, and faculty who know the literature will notice which well-known contrary study is missing. Including it, appraising it fairly and explaining what it means for your question is one of the clearer routes to the higher band.

Where can I find a free NU 760 Unit 3 sample paper?

Read the entire NU 760 Unit 3 silicone dressing bibliography on this page at no charge, every annotation plus the closing synthesis. If you have a different question or source list, a custom annotated bibliography can be written for it.