| Course | NURS 4151 Nursing Research & Evidence-Based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two peer replies |
| Length | About 570 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 4151 Week 2
Week 2 Discussion: Initial Post
Two Studies of Hourly Rounding, Two Different Questions
I chose two studies that look at the same practice from opposite directions: one counts what happened to patients after hourly rounding began, and the other watches what happened to the nurses asked to do it.
The quantitative study is Brosey and March (2015), a program evaluation of structured hourly nurse rounding on one medical-surgical unit in a large community hospital. Its design is a pre-post comparison without a control unit: outcomes measured before the program were compared with outcomes during it. The outcome measures were HCAHPS patient experience scores, patient falls and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. The authors reported that falls and pressure ulcers decreased during the project period and that most satisfaction domain scores rose, with the exception of staff responsiveness.
The qualitative study is Deitrick et al. (2012), which used ethnographic methods to examine how hourly rounding was implemented on two similar inpatient units in one hospital. Rather than measuring outcomes, it looked at the problems nurses and units ran into as they tried to make rounding part of their work, and it concluded that careful planning, communication, implementation and evaluation were needed for the change to succeed.
Each design supports a different kind of claim. Brosey and March can claim that the fall count on one unit went down during the period when rounding was in place. That is useful, but a pre-post design without a comparison unit cannot establish that rounding caused the drop. Seasonal changes in patient mix, staffing, a new bed alarm or simply greater attention to falls during a project could produce the same pattern. Deitrick et al. can claim to describe how implementation looked and felt on those units: what got in the way, how staff understood the practice and where the process broke down. What their design cannot do is say how often those problems occur elsewhere or whether rounding changed any patient outcome at all.
The two studies therefore answer different questions. The first asks whether an outcome changed; the second asks what it takes to make the practice happen. Neither would settle, alone, whether hourly rounding works. A unit considering it would need both: evidence that it can reduce falls, and an understanding of why rounding programs so often fade once the project ends. In that sense the qualitative study is not weaker evidence about the same question. It is strong evidence about a different one.
Reply to Nicole
Nicole, you ranked the qualitative study at the bottom of the evidence hierarchy and suggested setting it aside. I agree that hierarchies place qualitative evidence below controlled trials for questions about whether an intervention works. But hierarchies are built for intervention questions. If the question is why nurses stop rounding after three months, a trial cannot answer it and an interview or observation study can. Would you keep the qualitative study for the implementation part of your project?
Reply to Samuel
Samuel, you asked whether any study combines both approaches. Tucker et al. (2012) is a good example: they tracked fall rates on two orthopedic units before, during and a year after an hourly rounding intervention, then held focus groups with nurses afterward. Their fall rates dropped during the intervention and drifted back toward baseline a year later, and the focus groups helped explain why, since nurses experienced the rounds and their documentation as a burden. The numbers showed what happened; the nurses explained it.
References
Brosey, L. A., & March, K. S. (2015). Effectiveness of structured hourly nurse rounding on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 30(2), 153-159. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000086
Deitrick, L. M., Baker, K., Paxton, H., Flores, M., & Swavely, D. (2012). Hourly rounding: Challenges with implementation of an evidence-based process. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 27(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0b013e318227d7dd
Tucker, S. J., Bieber, P. L., Attlesey-Pries, J. M., Olson, M. E., & Dierkhising, R. A. (2012). Outcomes and challenges in implementing hourly rounds to reduce falls in orthopedic units. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2011.00227.x
The Walden NURS 4151 Week 2 instructions
The second NURS 4151 thread often asks you to compare two research designs, often a numbers-based study set beside an interview study on one topic. You name each design accurately, describe what each measures, explain the kind of question each can answer and note limitations. Faculty grade vocabulary precision first. Cite both studies and a research methods text in APA 7. The two studies usually share a topic so the contrast is clear. Qualitative research is not lower quality; it answers different questions, and the post can say so. Replies should check the classmate's design labels. NURS 4151 faculty want both studies cited in full and each design named with the term your text uses.
How the NURS 4151 Week 2 example is put together
The initial post is roughly five hundred words, organized as a two-column comparison rendered in prose. The quantitative study, described by design, setting and outcome measure, is a pre-post comparison of fall rates on one unit before and after rounding began. The qualitative study is a descriptive interview study of nurses' experiences with scheduled rounding. For each, the post states the kind of claim the design supports, a change in a measured rate for the first and an account of meaning and workflow for the second, and then what lies beyond it: causation without a control group for the first, any statement about frequency for the second. A closing paragraph argues that the two answer different questions. Both studies appear in APA 7 references, and the replies engage evidence hierarchies and mixed methods.
Where the marks sit in the NURS 4151 Week 2 rubric
Design discussions are graded on accuracy of research vocabulary first, and graders hold posts to the precise sense of each term. Calling a pre-post study an experiment, or describing interview data as having a sample size that makes it generalizable, loses the accuracy line immediately. The comparison itself is scored for depth, which here means stating limits that follow from design rather than generic weaknesses like 'small sample' attached to everything. Posts that crown one design the winner tend to lose reasoning points, because the prompt usually rewards understanding what each design is for. Citation is required, often two sources, and the two studies being compared count only when they are cited correctly. Replies that restate the post's comparison score poorly; replies introducing a hierarchy or a mixed-methods alternative earn the contribution line.
NURS 4151 Week 2 help from the desk
Design posts lose the most when a design is mislabeled, such as labeling a pre-post study as a trial with random assignment. Check each label against your text. Another common gap is ranking qualitative research as weaker without saying for what purpose. Explain what each design is for. Writers also summarize findings without discussing design. Focus on how each study was built. Avoid choosing studies on unrelated topics. Note one limitation of each. In replies, test a classmate's label. Close with how the two studies could inform practice together. Writers also forget sample size and setting, which limit what each study shows. Note them.
Get a NURS 4151 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 2 prompt, the rubric, and the studies your section assigned or a topic you want the designs drawn from. The post returns with both designs treated in parallel, limits stated in design terms and references in APA 7, alongside two replies, each bringing a new source. Your first sample is free and comes back inside 24-48 hours.
More NURS 4151 papers and BSN samples
- NURS 4151 Week 1: Evidence in Practice Post
- NURS 4151 Week 3: PICOT Question
- NURS 4151 Week 4: Search Record
- NURS 4151 Week 5: Appraisal Worksheet
- NURS 4151 Week 6: Validity and Reliability Post
- NURS 4151 Week 7: Evidence Leveling Table
- NURS 4151 Week 8: Recommendation Synthesis
- NURS 4151 Week 9: Translation to Practice Post
- NURS 4151 Week 10: EBP Project
- NURS 4151 Week 11: Appraisal Skills Reflection
- NURS 4212 Week 2: Epidemiology Measures Thread
- NURS 4110 Week 2: Leadership Style Critique
- NURS 4300 Week 2: Capstone PICOT Question
- NURS 4106 Week 2: Near-Miss Reporting Thread
NURS 4151 Week 2 questions, answered
Is qualitative research lower quality than quantitative?
Not by nature, as the example sets out to show. Evidence hierarchies rank designs by how well they answer effectiveness questions, which is why interview studies sit lower there, but a question about experience or meaning is answered better by qualitative work. The example's closing paragraph makes that distinction, which this course's graders usually reward over a blanket ranking.
Do the two studies need to be on the same topic?
The prompt decides, but holding the topic constant makes the comparison far cleaner, which explains the example's choice. When the topic changes along with the design, any difference in claims could come from either the method or the subject. If your section assigned two unrelated articles, the sample still treats them in parallel and says plainly where the topic difference matters.
Are the studies in the example real publications?
The example describes its two studies by design, setting and measure rather than reproducing any published paper's results, so no finding on this page should be quoted as evidence. A custom sample for your section cites real, retrievable studies with full references, and those citations are checked so that every design label matches what the researchers actually did.
Where can I find a free NURS 4151 Week 2 sample paper?
The two-studies design contrast post is reproduced here with each design named precisely, what each can show and replies to Nicole and Samuel.
Which two designs are compared in NURS 4151 Week 2?
A pre-post quasi-experimental study of falls and call lights and a descriptive qualitative study of nurses' experience of rounding.