| Course | NURS 4151 Nursing Research & Evidence-Based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Database search record |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 4151 Week 4
Search Record for the Hourly Rounding Question: Strings, Results and Screening
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 4151: Nursing Research and Evidence-Based Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Search Record for the Hourly Rounding Question: Strings, Results and Screening
The Week 3 question asks whether purposeful hourly rounding, set against rounding only when patients call, lowers the fall rate among high-risk adults on medical-surgical units across a six-month period.
Four concepts were drawn from the question for searching: the intervention (hourly rounding), the outcome (falls), the setting (hospital inpatients) and, as a screening criterion rather than a search term, fall risk. The comparison and time elements were applied at screening, because studies rarely index them in a searchable way. Searches were run in CINAHL Complete and PubMed through the Walden University Library.
Concept Table
Table 1
Search Concepts, Keywords and Controlled Vocabulary
| Concept | Keywords and synonyms | CINAHL Headings | MeSH (PubMed) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hourly rounding | hourly round*, purposeful round*, intentional round*, nurs* round*, comfort round* | Nursing Rounds | no specific heading; keywords used |
| Falls | fall*, fall rate*, patient fall* | Accidental Falls; Accidental Falls, Prevention and Control | Accidental Falls |
| Inpatient setting | inpatient*, hospital*, medical-surgical, acute care | Inpatients; Hospital Units | Inpatients; Hospitals |
| Fall risk (screening only) | high risk, fall risk, Morse | Risk Assessment | Risk Assessment |
Search Log
Each search was run once and logged as entered. Limits were English language, peer-reviewed journals (CINAHL), and publication years 2005 to present, chosen because scheduled rounding protocols were first widely studied in the mid-2000s.
Table 2
Searches Run, With Limits and Results
| # | Database | Date | Search string | Limits | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CINAHL | Oct. 5 | (MH "Nursing Rounds") OR "hourly round*" OR "purposeful round*" OR "intentional round*" | English; peer reviewed; 2005 to present | 412 |
| 2 | CINAHL | Oct. 5 | S1 AND ((MH "Accidental Falls+") OR fall*) | Same | 138 |
| 3 | CINAHL | Oct. 5 | S2 AND (inpatient* OR hospital* OR "medical-surgical" OR "acute care") | Same | 97 |
| 4 | PubMed | Oct. 6 | ("hourly rounding" OR "purposeful rounding" OR "intentional rounding" OR "nursing rounds") AND ("Accidental Falls"[MeSH] OR fall*) | English; 2005 to present | 121 |
| 5 | PubMed | Oct. 6 | #4 AND (inpatients[MeSH] OR hospital* OR "acute care") | Same | 88 |
Results from searches 3 and 5 were exported to a citation manager for screening. Counts reflect the dates shown and will change as databases add records.
Screening
Screening followed the flow described in the PRISMA 2020 statement, which expects a review to show how many records entered and left at every step, with reasons given whenever a full-text report is dropped (Page et al., 2021). Inclusion criteria were adult inpatient settings, a scheduled rounding intervention, and falls reported as an outcome or, for qualitative studies, rounding implementation as the focus. Table 3 shows the flow.
Table 3
Screening Flow
| Stage | Records | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Identified (CINAHL 97 + PubMed 88) | 185 | Exported from searches 3 and 5 |
| Duplicates removed | 61 | 124 unique records remain |
| Excluded at title and abstract | 98 | Not rounding (41); no falls outcome or implementation focus (33); non-acute setting (14); commentary or news item (10) |
| Full texts assessed | 26 | |
| Excluded at full text | 20 | Rounding combined with several other fall interventions, effect not separable (8); pediatric or mixed population (4); falls not reported as a rate or count (5); duplicate report of a study already included (3) |
| Included | 6 | Listed below |
Adjustments During the Search
Two changes were made after trial runs, and both are recorded here so the final strings make sense. A first CINAHL search using the single word rounding returned more than 2,000 records, most about physician or pharmacist rounds, bedside handoff, or rounding as a leadership practice. Adding the modifiers hourly, purposeful and intentional, together with the Nursing Rounds heading, removed most of that noise. Intentional rounding was added because it is the term used in much of the United Kingdom literature, and a quick check showed several relevant studies that the American terms missed.
The second change concerned limits. An early PubMed run limited to the past five years returned only 19 records and excluded the multisite study most often cited in this literature, so the date limit was widened to 2005. Finally, the reference list of the systematic review was checked by hand for studies the database searches missed. It produced two candidate records, both already captured by search 3, so no new records were added from that source.
Studies Retained
The six studies retained for appraisal are a systematic review (Mitchell et al., 2014); a multisite quasi-experimental study of one-hour and two-hour rounds (Meade et al., 2006); three single-site pre-post evaluations (Brosey & March, 2015; Goldsack et al., 2015; Tucker et al., 2012); and an ethnographic study of implementation (Deitrick et al., 2012). No randomized controlled trial of hourly rounding and falls met the criteria, which is itself a finding worth carrying into the appraisal.
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
Goldsack, J., Bergey, M., Mascioli, S., & Cunningham, J. (2015). Hourly rounding and patient falls: What factors boost success? Nursing, 45(2), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NURSE.0000459798.79840.95
Meade, C. M., Bursell, A. L., & Ketelsen, L. (2006). Effects of nursing rounds on patients' call light use, satisfaction, and safety. American Journal of Nursing, 106(9), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000446-200609000-00029
Mitchell, M. D., Lavenberg, J. G., Trotta, R. L., & Umscheid, C. A. (2014). Hourly rounding to improve nursing responsiveness: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Administration, 44(9), 462-472. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000101
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
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
Reading the NURS 4151 Week 4 instructions
The fourth NURS 4151 week commonly asks for a record of your literature search. You map concepts to terms, record exact search strings, databases, limits, dates and result counts, report screening with exclusion reasons, explain adjustments and list retained studies. Faculty mark reproducibility and the fit between search and question. Cite search guidance such as PRISMA in APA 7. Two databases is a common minimum. Your counts will differ from the example because databases update. Excluded studies belong in the record with reasons. NURS 4151 faculty want each search string copied exactly with its database, limits, date and count. Report screening numbers at each stage. Explain any change to the strings.
How this NURS 4151 Week 4 example is built
Three pages, most of them tables. A short opening paragraph restates the PICOT question and lists the concepts pulled from it. A concept table follows, with each concept's keywords and synonyms in one column and the matching controlled vocabulary in another, CINAHL Headings for CINAHL and MeSH terms for PubMed. The search log records each string exactly as run, with Boolean operators and truncation visible, the database, the date, the limits applied, such as publication years, English language and peer review, and the number of results. A screening section then documents, in a PRISMA-style flow diagram, how many records were identified, how many duplicates were removed, how many were excluded at title and abstract, and how many full texts were read, with exclusion reasons given as counts. Six studies remain at the end.
Where the marks sit in the NURS 4151 Week 4 rubric
Search assignments are marked on reproducibility and on the fit between search and question. Reproducibility means exact strings, databases named, limits and dates recorded, and a record missing any of those loses points even when the final studies are excellent. Fit is judged by whether the concepts come from the PICOT elements and whether both keywords and controlled vocabulary were used; a search run on one phrase in a single database reads as a sampling of the literature rather than a search of it. Screening is scored for transparency, and a jump from a large yield to five studies with no counts between them usually costs the documentation line. Limits need a reason, particularly date ranges. Some sections also mark the choice of databases, where a nursing question searched without CINAHL tends to draw comment.
NURS 4151 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Search records lose the most when strings are paraphrased instead of recorded exactly. Copy them. Another common gap is no date or limits, so the search cannot be repeated. Record both. Writers also skip exclusion reasons. Give one for each excluded study at full text. Avoid searching only one database. Use subject headings as well as keywords. Explain any changes to the string. Close with the list of studies you will appraise. Writers also forget to search for gray literature or note why it was excluded. Say which. Another frequent slip is a retained list with no reason for inclusion. Add one line each.
Get a NURS 4151 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Pass along your PICOT question, the Week 4 prompt and its rubric, and the databases your section requires if it names any. What returns is a search record with concepts, strings, limits and counts logged and a screening flow drawn to match. Results reflect the databases at the time of searching. First custom sample free, delivered in 24-48 hours.
More NURS 4151 papers and BSN samples
- NURS 4151 Week 1: Evidence in Practice Post
- NURS 4151 Week 2: Design Contrast Post
- NURS 4151 Week 3: PICOT Question
- 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 4: Health Indicators Section
- NURS 4110 Week 4: Advocacy Development Plan
- NURS 4300 Week 4: Capstone Literature Review
- NURS 4106 Week 4: Contributing Factor Analysis
NURS 4151 Week 4 questions, answered
How many databases does the search record need?
Prompts in this course commonly ask for at least two, and the example uses CINAHL and PubMed because together they cover nursing and biomedical literature well. Some sections add a third, such as a Cochrane database for systematic reviews. Full documentation of each database counts for more than the count itself, since a well-logged two-database search outscores a thinly described four-database one.
Will my search return the same counts as the example?
Almost certainly not, and that is expected. Databases add records daily, and small differences in limits or truncation change counts noticeably. What should match is the method: concepts drawn from the question, both vocabularies used, strings logged exactly. A custom search record is run for your own question and dated, so the counts it reports are the counts on that day.
Why include excluded studies in the record at all?
Because the exclusions are where the judgment happens. Retaining six studies from several hundred says little unless the record accounts for everything removed, and graders look for that accounting. The example groups its exclusion reasons with counts, which demonstrates the screening was systematic without listing hundreds of titles. A record listing only the survivors leaves the reader unable to tell a screen from a pick.
Where can I find a free NURS 4151 Week 4 sample paper?
The rounding search record is reproduced here with the concept table, exact strings, screening stages, adjustments and the retained studies.
Which databases does the NURS 4151 Week 4 search use?
CINAHL and PubMed, with controlled vocabulary such as the MeSH term for accidental falls.