NURS 4151 Week 5 Appraisal Worksheet Example

Course	NURS 4151 Nursing Research & Evidence-Based Practice
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Research appraisal worksheet
Length	About 890 words, 6 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 5

Research Appraisal Worksheet: Goldsack et al. (2015), Hourly Rounding and Patient Falls

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 4151: Nursing Research and Evidence-Based Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingOne study, appraised element by element. Every cell ends in a judgment, not just a description.

Research Appraisal Worksheet: Goldsack et al. (2015), Hourly Rounding and Patient Falls

Study appraised: Goldsack et al. (2015), a report of hourly rounding introduced on two inpatient units through a Lean Six Sigma project. The full APA 7 reference appears in the reference list.

The study was retained from the Week 4 search as one of the single-site evaluations of rounding. Levels and quality ratings follow the Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice model (Dang et al., 2022).

Table 1

Appraisal of Goldsack et al. (2015)

Element	Appraisal
Source and format	Published in a clinical practice journal written for bedside nurses rather than in a research journal. The article is short, and its methods are summarized rather than reported in full, which explains several gaps noted in the cells below. A practice journal is a reasonable place for an improvement report, but the format means a reader cannot check every analytic step.
Purpose and question	To determine the effect of patient-centered proactive hourly rounding on patient falls, implemented through a Lean Six Sigma improvement project. The purpose is clearly stated and matches my PICOT intervention and outcome. The question is implied rather than written out, and the article is framed partly as a quality improvement report, which affects how its results should be read.
Design	A 30-day prospective pilot on two units, with each unit's fall rate during the pilot compared with its own one-year baseline mean. This is a pre-post quasi-experimental design without a concurrent control group. The design cannot rule out seasonal variation, changes in patient mix, other safety work running at the same time, or the extra attention any project brings. Having two units helps, but they were not a control for each other: both received the intervention, differing in how it was introduced.
Sample and setting	Two adult inpatient units in one hospital; Unit 1 was a medical unit. Nurse leaders and a staff champion on Unit 1 took part in designing the program from the start, while Unit 2 staff were trained shortly before the pilot began. The setting resembles my PICOT population, adult medical inpatients, but the study did not restrict its outcome to high-fall-risk patients, so its sample is broader than my question.
Intervention	Proactive hourly rounding addressing patient needs, introduced through an interdisciplinary team with unit champions. The intervention is described well enough to recognize but not in enough detail to replicate the exact actions and documentation.
Measures	Falls per 1,000 patient days, the same outcome form as my PICOT question, which is a strength. The article does not describe in detail how falls were defined or captured, for example whether assisted falls or falls found only on later review were counted. Because hospitals define falls differently, this limits comparison with other studies.
Results	As the authors reported: on Unit 1 the fall rate fell from a one-year baseline mean of 3.9 to 1.3 falls per 1,000 patient days during the pilot, a significant difference (p = .006). On Unit 2 the rate went from 2.6 to 2.5, which was not significant (p = .799). I have not recalculated these figures. The direction on Unit 1 is favorable; the lack of change on Unit 2 is at least as informative.
Authors' conclusions	The authors attribute Unit 1's improvement to the active involvement of leaders and front-line staff in designing the program and serving as champions. This is a reasonable interpretation, but the design cannot separate that engagement from rounding itself. What the study supports is that rounding introduced with staff engagement was associated with fewer falls on one unit over one month.
Limitations I would add	First, a 30-day pilot is very short. On a unit of typical size, a month contains relatively few patient days, so the pilot rate rests on a small number of falls, and a change of one or two falls moves it considerably. Second, the pilot rate is compared with a one-year average rather than with the same month in the prior year, so seasonal differences in admissions are not addressed. Neither limitation makes the study useless, but together they weaken confidence in the size of the Unit 1 effect.
Evidence level and quality	Level II (quasi-experimental). Quality C, low. Reasoning: there is no concurrent control, the observation period is short, the sample of falls is small, and the results are inconsistent between the two units. The Johns Hopkins quality criteria for Level II call for reasonably consistent results and adequate samples for a good rating, and this study does not meet them.
Applicability to my PICOT	Moderate. Setting, intervention and outcome measure all match. The broader population and the one-month period do not. The study's most useful contribution to my project is not the size of its effect but its contrast between the two units, which suggests that how rounding is introduced may matter as much as whether it is done.

What this page is doingThe results cell reports the authors' numbers without recalculating them, and the limitations cell adds two that follow from the design.

Summary Judgment

Goldsack et al. (2015) offers weak evidence that hourly rounding reduces falls and stronger, though still preliminary, evidence that staff engagement shapes whether it works. Its findings are consistent in direction with the systematic review by Mitchell et al. (2014), which rated the evidence that rounding reduces falls as moderate in strength. For the synthesis, this study will be used mainly under the theme of conditions for success rather than as proof of effect.

What this page is doingThe summary decides where the study belongs in the later synthesis, which is the purpose of appraising it.

References

Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2022). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.

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

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

The Walden NURS 4151 Week 5 instructions

Week 5 of NURS 4151 usually asks for an appraisal worksheet on one research study. You fill each cell of the worksheet, assign a level and quality rating with a named hierarchy, and write a summary judgment of the study's usefulness for your question. Faculty give more weight to cells that require judgment, such as limitations and applicability, than to descriptive ones. Cite the study and the appraisal model in APA 7. Results should be reported accurately rather than recalculated. The example's study is real, so its details can be checked. A quality improvement report should be leveled as such. NURS 4151 faculty want the level and quality rating stated with the hierarchy named.

Inside the NURS 4151 Week 5 example

Four pages in a two-column worksheet, element on the left and appraisal on the right. The citation heads the page in APA 7. Purpose and research question are stated in a sentence each and judged for clarity. Design is identified as a pre-post quasi-experimental study without a concurrent control, and the cell names what that design cannot rule out, such as seasonal variation and other safety initiatives running at the same time. The sample cell records setting, size and selection, then judges whether the units resemble the population in the PICOT question. Measures are appraised for how falls were defined and counted. Results are reported as the authors stated them, without recalculation. The limitations cell adds two the authors did not acknowledge. Evidence level and quality grade are assigned on the Johns Hopkins scale, each with its reasoning.

Reading the NURS 4151 Week 5 rubric

Worksheet rubrics tend to price a cell by the thinking it demands, so the cells that describe the study are worth less than the cells that weigh it. Limitations is the clearest case: repeating the authors' own list earns partial credit at best, while a limitation the authors missed, argued from the design, earns the rest. Evidence level is marked for accuracy against the hierarchy the section names and for its justification, and a level given without the tool identified reads as a guess. Applicability, where it appears, is judged on whether the study is tested against the PICOT population in particular rather than against nursing in general. Results reported with an interpretation the authors never made cost points for accuracy. The citation is checked for APA 7, and an unnamed appraisal tool is a small, recurring deduction.

NURS 4151 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks

Worksheets lose credit when descriptive cells are full and the limitations cell says sample size was small. Discuss the limitations that change what the study can claim. Another common gap is a level assigned without naming the hierarchy. Name it. Writers also overstate applicability. Say how the study's setting differs from yours. Avoid recalculating results. Report them as published. Keep the summary judgment short and clear. Check the reference details. Close with how the study fits your PICOT question. Writers also forget the Lean Six Sigma context, which means other changes may have run alongside rounding. Name that confounder.

Get a NURS 4151 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Send the article you are appraising, or its citation, along with the Week 5 worksheet and rubric. The appraisal returns in your template with every cell completed and judged, the evidence level assigned on the hierarchy your section uses, and limitations argued from the design. Your first sample is free, back within 24-48 hours.

More NURS 4151 papers and BSN samples

NURS 4151 Week 5 questions, answered

Which evidence hierarchy does the worksheet use?

The example uses the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice scale, which assigns both a level and a quality grade, because many nursing templates are built on it. Other sections name the Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt levels instead, which rank designs from systematic reviews of randomized trials downward. Whichever the rubric names is the one used, and the worksheet says so in its first line.

Should results be recalculated in an appraisal?

Rarely at this stage. The example reports the study's results as the authors stated them and appraises whether the analysis suited the design and data. Recomputing effect sizes or rates is seldom requested in a first appraisal and introduces a new chance for error. What the results cell does judge is whether the reported findings support the authors' conclusion, which is where most of its points sit.

Does the example reproduce a real study's findings?

It describes the study by design and method and restates no figures from any publication, so nothing here should be cited as a result. A custom worksheet appraises the actual article you send, reporting its findings accurately and citing it in APA 7, and every judgment in it is tied to what that article says rather than to a general impression of the topic.

Where can I find a free NURS 4151 Week 5 sample paper?

The Goldsack and colleagues appraisal worksheet is printed here with every cell filled, limitations weighed and the summary judgment.

Which study does the NURS 4151 Week 5 worksheet appraise?

Goldsack and colleagues' 2015 report of hourly rounding introduced on two units through a Lean Six Sigma project.