using the question you selected in your week 2 project part 1 of the course project –

using the question you selected in your week 2 project part 1 of the course project –

  • Review the information in Chapter 5 of the course text, focusing on the steps for conducting a literature review and for compiling your findings.
  • Using the question you selected in your Week 2 Project (Part 1 of the Course Project), locate 5 or more full-text research articles that are relevant to your PICOT question. Include at least 1 systematic review and 1 integrative review if possible. Use the search tools and techniques mentioned in your readings this week to enhance the comprehensiveness and objectivity of your review. You may gather these articles from any appropriate source, but make sure at least 3 of these articles are available as full-text versions through Walden Library’s databases.
  • Read through the articles carefully. Eliminate studies that are not appropriate and add others to your list as needed. Although you may include more, you are expected to include a minimum of five articles. Complete a literature review summary table using the Literature Review Summary Table Template located in this week’s Learning Resources.
  • Prepare to summarize and synthesize the literature using the information on writing a literature review found in Chapter 5 of the course text.

To complete:

Write a 3- to 4-page literature review that includes the following:

  • A synthesis of what the studies reveal about the current state of knowledge on the question that you developed
    • Point out inconsistencies and contradictions in the literature and offer possible explanations for inconsistencies.
  • Preliminary conclusions on whether the evidence provides strong support for a change in practice or whether further research is needed to adequately address your inquiry
  • Your literature review summary table with all references formatted in correct APA style

Note: Certain aspects of conducting a standard review of literature have not yet been covered in this course. Therefore, while you are invited to critically examine any aspect of the studies (e.g., a study’s design, appropriateness of the theoretic framework, data sampling methods), your conclusion should be considered preliminary. Bear in mind that five studies are typically not enough to reflect the full range of knowledge on a particular question and you are not expected to be familiar enough with research methodology to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the studies.

Below is an example of the PICOT Question asked

My PICOT Question

The literature research question will be based on the PICOT question: In cardiac patients who have thoracic surgery, what are the effects of antibacterial soap baths and bacitracin prophylactic nasal swabs on preventing or decreasing Deep Sternal Wound Infections (DSWI)? Simple search term(s): Thoracic surgery and the effects of antibacterial soap baths and bacitracin prophylactic nasal swabs on preventing or decreasing Deep Sternal Wound Infections (DSWI).

I found two results on the topic ESGARAB, Terminology Workbook for Medical Interpreters: A Language-Neutral Reference Tool, which were peer-reviewed articles with no time range. However, after altering the timeline to register as 2014-2015, the only result that was evident was Terminology Workbook for Medical Interpreters: A Language-Neutral Reference Tool. This was one of the results derived from the prior search.This is a workbook which may be relied upon as a developmental tool, relied upon by medical interpreters.The reason for altering the timeline to a more specific timeframe was to ensure that the data I relied on was up to date, to the point, and dependable.

Next, I filtered the results using the terms antibacterial soap baths and bacitracin prophylactic nasal swabs in preventing or decreasing Deep Sternal Wound Infections in Thoracic surgery to which I found 11 results. Decolonization in the prevention of healthcare-associated infections; which the first article in the search results finds colonization among healthcare-associated pathogens inclusive of Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Clostridium Difficile, and Gram-negative organisms has been found to lead to infections while heightening the risk of getting affected. Decolonization is found therefore to be an evidence-based intervention that may be applicable in the plight to prevent HAIs which are in essence healthcare-associated infections.

The article also asserts that there may be studies focusing on the S. aureus decolonization as well as on the decolonization strategies meant to cut down the possibility of infections because of the Gram-negative organisms and more so the multidrug-resistant (Septimus, & Schweizer, 2016). The filtered results described the findings; Staphylococcal Decolonization in Surgery Patients which argues mainly that the Staphylococcus aureus is, in essence, a commensal skin bacterium that is profound in the anterior nares. In my research, I found that the patients found with the S. aureus have a higher risk of being infected by the same organism: nosocomial and surgical site infections. The methicillin-susceptible S. aureus contributes to severe infections.

Highly randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have been integrated in the plight in a bid to support the decolonization and assert the benefits thereof in cardiothoracic and orthopedic surgery patients although general surgery patients have been hindered by small sample sizes as well as the limited nuance of the S. aureus around surgical site infections (Ludwig, & Dellinger, 2018). The various results enable the comprehension of the dynamics of research and integrating the results thereof through analyzing the hierarchies of evidence, filtering tools, and the use of concise keywords.


Ludwig, A. D., & Dellinger, E. P. (2018). Staphylococcal Decolonization in Surgery Patients. In Infection Prevention (pp. 93-101). Springer, Cham.

Septimus, E. J., & Schweizer, M. L. (2016). Decolonization in prevention of health care-associated infections. Clinical microbiology reviews, 29(2), 201-222.

Writing Hub