| Course | NU 760 Scholarship for Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Evidence translation plan |
| 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 5
Translating Evidence on Clinically Indicated Peripheral IV Catheter Replacement Into Practice on a Medical-Surgical Unit
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 760: Scholarship for Nursing Practice
Instructor Name
February 18, 2026
Translating Evidence on Clinically Indicated Peripheral IV Catheter Replacement Into Practice on a Medical-Surgical Unit
What the Evidence Supports, at the Strength It Supports It
On the composite 36-bed medical-surgical unit, policy still requires a new peripheral line at the four-day mark, so patients with a functioning line and a clean site are restuck on schedule. The evidence supports a different approach. An Australian equivalence trial that randomized several thousand adult medical and surgical inpatients found that leaving catheters in place until there was a clinical reason to remove them, such as phlebitis, infiltration, blockage, or the end of therapy, gave phlebitis rates no different from scheduled replacement while sparing patients many insertions (Rickard et al., 2012). A Cochrane systematic review of randomized trials reached the same conclusion across trials: bloodstream infections and phlebitis did not differ meaningfully between the two approaches, and replacing lines only when needed cost less, and rated the evidence as of moderate certainty for phlebitis (Webster et al., 2019). The national infusion therapy standards recommend removing peripheral catheters when clinically indicated rather than at fixed intervals, with regular site assessment (Gorski et al., 2021).
The evidence therefore supports adoption rather than only a trial, with one caveat: the trials were conducted in settings with systematic site assessment, and the benefit depends on the unit assessing sites reliably. The plan treats site assessment as the condition for the change, not an afterthought.
The Framework
The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice guides the plan, because it moves in explicit decision points from a triggering issue to piloting and integration (Iowa Model Collaborative, 2017). Trigger: a staff nurse question at a unit council meeting about why patients with good veins and working catheters were being restuck. Priority: the question aligns with the hospital's goal of reducing hospital-acquired harm and with patient complaints about repeated insertions. Team: the unit's clinical nurse specialist, two staff nurses, the vascular access nurse, an infection preventionist, and a pharmacist. Evidence: sufficient, as summarized above. Pilot: the change is piloted on this unit before spread, as the model directs, because local conditions can change results even when the evidence is strong.
The Change, Operationally
What happens: nurses remove peripheral catheters when clinically indicated, and no longer replace them at 96 hours if the site is healthy and the catheter is needed. To whom: all adult patients with peripheral catheters on the unit. Delivered by whom: the patient's registered nurse. Instead of what: the current 96-hour routine replacement policy, which will be suspended for the pilot unit with approval from the nursing practice council and infection prevention.
The condition that makes the change safe is site assessment. Nurses will assess every peripheral catheter site at least every four hours, and at every medication administration through the catheter, using a standardized phlebitis scale recorded in the flowsheet. Removal criteria: any sign of phlebitis at the scale's defined threshold, infiltration, occlusion, dislodgement, patient complaint of pain at the site, or completion of intravenous therapy. The flowsheet will prompt the nurse once each shift to confirm that the catheter is still needed, because idle catheters are a separate risk.
Preparing the Setting
Education: a 15-minute huddle session on the evidence, the assessment scale, and removal criteria, delivered by the clinical nurse specialist on each shift over two weeks, with a competency check of site assessment on five patients per nurse. System changes: a policy exception approved for the pilot unit; the flowsheet updated with the phlebitis scale and the daily necessity prompt; the automatic 96-hour replacement task removed from the pilot unit's task list. Communication: prescribers and the vascular access team informed of the change and the criteria.
Measures and Decision Point
Outcome and safety measures, collected over a three-month baseline and a three-month pilot period: phlebitis rate per 1,000 catheter-days; catheter-related bloodstream infections, from infection prevention surveillance; infiltration rate. Process measures: proportion of catheter sites assessed every four hours, from weekly audits of 20 patients; proportion of catheters removed with a documented indication. Resource measures: peripheral catheter insertions per 100 patient-days and catheter supply costs. Patient experience: a two-question survey about insertion attempts and site comfort. The pilot succeeds if phlebitis and bloodstream infection rates do not increase, site assessment compliance exceeds 90%, and insertions fall. A decision to spread, modify, or stop will be made by the team at the three-month review and presented to the nursing practice council.
Where the Evidence Could Fail Here
The plan names two ways the change could fail locally despite strong evidence. If site assessment compliance is low, catheters could remain in place with unrecognized phlebitis, which would reverse the conditions under which the trials found safety; the weekly audit is designed to detect this early. And if prescribers resist the change because of long-standing habits, they may order routine replacement anyway; the team's physician champion will address this at the medical staff meeting before the pilot begins.
References
Gorski, L. A., Hadaway, L., Hagle, M. E., Broadhurst, D., Clare, S., Kleidon, T., Meyer, B. M., Nickel, B., Rowley, S., Sharpe, E., & Alexander, M. (2021). Infusion therapy standards of practice, 8th edition. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 44(1S), S1-S224. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396
Iowa Model Collaborative. (2017). Iowa model of evidence-based practice: Revisions and validation. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(3), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12223
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
The Herzing NU 760 Unit 5 instructions
Unit 5 asks you to plan how the evidence from your appraisal will be translated into practice in your setting. Expect to summarize the evidence and its strength, select a translation or implementation framework, describe the practice change operationally, plan education and preparation, identify barriers and facilitators, and define measures for a pilot. Common frameworks include the Iowa Model, the Johns Hopkins model, ARCC and the Stetler model, but check whether your section names one. The plan should be specific enough that a manager could follow it. If you lack authority to make the change, explain who would approve it. Barriers should be specific to your setting rather than generic statements about resistance to change.
How the NU 760 Unit 5 example is put together
The plan begins by stating what the evidence supports and at what strength, which keeps the change from claiming more than the trials show. The framework section explains why the Iowa Model fits, naming its decision points. The change is described as actions: what nurses do, when, and what triggers removal. Preparation covers education, policy revision, documentation changes and supplies, each with an owner. Measures are listed with definitions and a baseline period, and the decision point gives the result needed to adopt the change. The final section is honest about local risk, naming two ways the change could fail despite strong evidence and the indicator that would show each early. The Infusion Nurses Society standards support the assessment piece.
Reading the NU 760 Unit 5 rubric
The rubric Herzing applies to a translation plan typically scores the evidence summary, the framework, the implementation strategy, barriers and facilitators, evaluation and writing. Evidence points require an accurate statement of findings and strength. The framework criterion earns full marks when the chosen model is applied step by step rather than named. Implementation strategy is usually weighted most and rewards operational detail, including education, policy and workflow. Barrier criteria look for setting-specific obstacles with mitigation. The evaluation row rewards defined measures, a baseline and a decision rule. Writing points cover organization and APA 7 citations for the evidence, the framework source and practice standards such as Gorski and colleagues' infusion standards.
Common NU 760 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Unit 5 plans often fall short with a framework named in one sentence and never used. Another problem is a change described as a goal, such as reduce unnecessary IV restarts, rather than an action. Students frequently overstate the evidence, claiming a change is proven safe when trials show noninferiority within limits. Barriers like staff resistance without specifics earn little. Education plans that omit who teaches, when and how long are hard to credit. Measures without a baseline cannot show change. Some plans skip a decision point, leaving the pilot open-ended. Finally, consider how the change could fail even with strong evidence, because graders value that awareness and it often marks the difference between good and excellent work.
Get a NU 760 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 5 instructions and the rubric from your NU 760 classroom, plus your setting and the evidence your earlier units established. We write a custom example that turns it into a specific change with its barriers and its measures named, and return it in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 760 papers and MSN samples
- NU 760 Unit 1: Practice problem statement
- NU 760 Unit 2: Search strategy
- NU 760 Unit 3: Annotated bibliography
- NU 760 Unit 4: Evidence review
- NU 760 Unit 6: Dissemination plan
- NU 760 Unit 7: Scholarly paper
- NU 760 Unit 8: Peer review response
- NU 715 Unit 5: Coverage and payment assessment
- NSG 520 Unit 5: Site of action comparison
- NSG 521 Unit 5: Basic care activity rationale
- NU 700 Unit 5: Evidence appraisal
NU 760 Unit 5 questions, answered
Which translation framework should I use?
Whichever your instructions specify, and if the choice is open, one whose steps match what you actually have to do. Some are built for organizational adoption and others for individual practice change. What matters more than the choice is that the framework's steps produce visible decisions in your plan, rather than appearing in the opening and never again.
What if I have no authority to make the change?
Say so and name who does. Most writers in this course are proposing something they cannot authorize, and a plan that pretends otherwise is less credible, not more. Identify the role that would have to approve it, what they would want to see, and what you would bring them. That is a stronger paper than one that assumes the change simply happens.
How specific do the barriers have to be?
Specific enough to be addressed. Resistance to change is a category; the night shift has absorbed two other initiatives this quarter and has no protected time for a third is a barrier with a response available. Generic obstacles produce generic mitigations, and the rubric is looking for evidence you have thought about your own setting.
Where can I find a free NU 760 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds the complete NU 760 Unit 5 IV replacement translation plan for free, from the evidence summary to the pilot decision point. A custom plan can translate the evidence from your own appraisal with the framework your section names.
Which framework should I use to translate evidence into nursing practice?
The Iowa Model, Johns Hopkins model and ARCC are common choices. This sample uses the Iowa Model because its decision points, from triggering issue to pilot and integration, match a unit-level policy change like IV replacement.