NURS 4151 Week 7 Evidence Leveling Table Example

Course	NURS 4151 Nursing Research & Evidence-Based Practice
Week	Week 7
Paper type	Evidence leveling table
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 7

Evidence Leveling Table: Six Studies of Hourly Rounding and Inpatient 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 doingThe table does the sorting; the narrative only reads the pattern. What to recommend is left for next week.

Evidence Leveling Table: Six Studies of Hourly Rounding and Inpatient Falls

Table 1 sets out the six studies retained from the Week 4 search, ordered from the strongest level of evidence to the weakest. Each level and quality rating was assigned with the Johns Hopkins hierarchy and its quality guide (Dang et al., 2022), and findings are reported as the authors stated them. Where two studies share a level, the one with the higher quality rating is listed first.

Table 1

Evidence on Hourly Rounding and Falls, Leveled on the Johns Hopkins Hierarchy

Citation	Design	Setting and sample	Intervention as delivered	Outcome measure	Main finding (as reported)	Key limitation	Level	Quality
Mitchell et al. (2014)	Systematic review with GRADE rating	Published studies of hourly or scheduled nursing rounds in hospitals	Varied across included studies	Patient satisfaction, falls, call light use	Moderate-strength evidence that rounding improves perceived responsiveness and reduces falls and call light use	Outcomes measured too inconsistently to pool	II	B
Meade et al. (2006)	Quasi-experimental, nonequivalent groups	27 units in 14 hospitals	Protocol rounds at one-hour or two-hour intervals with set actions	Call light use, satisfaction, falls	Reduced call light use and falls; higher satisfaction	Short study period; groups not randomized	II	B
Tucker et al. (2012)	Repeated measures with nurse focus groups	Two orthopedic units	Hourly prescribed rounding documented on a study form for 12 weeks	Falls per 1,000 hospital days	Falls fell during the intervention (borderline trend) and drifted toward baseline at one year	Variable fidelity; no control units	II	B
Goldsack et al. (2015)	Prospective pre-post pilot	Two units in one hospital	Proactive hourly rounding through a Lean Six Sigma project	Falls per 1,000 patient days	Significant drop on the engaged unit; no change on the unit trained late	30-day pilot against a one-year baseline	II	C
Deitrick et al. (2012)	Qualitative, ethnographic	Two similar inpatient units in one hospital	Hourly rounding as implemented by staff	Implementation problems and staff experience	Planning, communication and evaluation needed for rounding to take hold	Single hospital; transferability limited	III	B
Brosey & March (2015)	Program evaluation, pre-post	One medical-surgical unit, community hospital	Structured hourly nurse rounding	HCAHPS scores, falls, pressure ulcers	Falls and pressure ulcers decreased; most satisfaction domains rose	Improvement report, not designed as research	V	C

Legend. Levels: I, randomized controlled trial or systematic review of such trials; II, quasi-experimental study or systematic review of quasi-experimental studies, with or without trials; III, nonexperimental or qualitative study, or a review including them; V, evidence from quality improvement, program evaluation or expert experience. Quality: A, high (consistent results, sufficient sample, adequate control, definitive conclusions); B, good (reasonably consistent results, sufficient sample, some control); C, low or major flaws (little evidence, inconsistent results, insufficient sample or control).

What this page is doingThe legend lets each rating be read without the model open, and the qualitative study is leveled on the same scale as the rest.

A Note on the Qualitative Study

Deitrick et al. (2012) is leveled at III because it is qualitative, but its level describes its strength for an intervention question, not its value. It will not be used as evidence that rounding reduces falls. It will be used to answer a different question the table raises: why the effects of rounding are hard to sustain, and what a unit would need in place before trying it.

The Pattern the Table Shows

Three features stand out. First, the evidence clusters at Level II. There is no randomized trial of hourly rounding and falls in the set, which is consistent with the systematic review's call for controlled trials. The strongest study is a review whose own conclusion is moderate.

Second, the studies agree in direction. Every study that measured falls reported fewer during rounding, on at least one unit or at least for a time. None reported an increase. Agreement in direction across different designs and settings is worth something, even when no single study is strong.

Third, the studies disagree in what they measured and for how long. Falls were counted per 1,000 hospital days in one study and per 1,000 patient days in another, and the articles do not share a common fall definition. Observation periods ran from 30 days to a year. The systematic review could not pool results for this reason.

A fourth pattern cuts across the others. Two of the studies, Tucker et al. (2012) and Goldsack et al. (2015), found the effect depended on how rounding was carried out: fall rates slipped back as fidelity faded in one, and only the unit whose staff helped design the program improved in the other. The qualitative study describes the same problem from the inside. The evidence, read together, says as much about implementation as about the intervention itself.

What this page is doingThe narrative describes where the evidence agrees and where it diverges, and stops there. The recommendation belongs to the synthesis.

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

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.

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

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 7 instructions

Week 7 of NURS 4151 commonly asks for a table leveling the evidence you will use. You list each study with design, sample, findings, level and quality using a named hierarchy, order them by strength, explain any special cases such as qualitative studies and describe the overall pattern. Faculty mark leveling accuracy first. Cite the hierarchy and each study in APA 7. A systematic review and its own included studies should not both be counted as separate evidence without comment. The study appraised earlier usually appears in the table. The pattern section prepares for the synthesis. NURS 4151 faculty want one named hierarchy used consistently down the table.

How this NURS 4151 Week 7 example is built

A wide table across two pages, then a page of narrative. Columns run: citation, design, setting and sample, intervention as delivered, outcome measure, main finding as the authors reported it, key limitation, evidence level, quality rating. The six rows are ordered by level, strongest first, putting the best evidence at the top. The hierarchy is named in the table's caption, and a legend explains the quality ratings so each can be read without the tool beside it. The example's set holds a systematic review, a multisite quasi-experimental study, two single-site pre-post studies, a program evaluation and a qualitative study, and the qualitative study is leveled with a note explaining how its evidence will be used. The narrative beneath identifies the pattern: most evidence sits at the middle levels, consistent in direction and inconsistent in how falls were defined.

NURS 4151 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks

Leveling tables are marked on accuracy first: each study's level has to match the hierarchy named, and a quasi-experimental study leveled as a trial, or a systematic review placed below one of its own included studies, is the error graders flag most. Uniform criteria come next; the rubric expects the same standard applied down all six rows, and deviations are easy to spot in a grid. Completeness means no empty cells, with the limitation column the one most often underfilled. The narrative earns its points by interpreting the pattern rather than repeating the rows in sentences, and a narrative that already recommends a practice change has jumped ahead of the assignment. Presentation takes a share as well, including a caption that names the leveling system. APA formatting of the table itself is often a separate small line.

NURS 4151 Week 7 help from the desk

Leveling tables lose the most when a quasi-experimental study is leveled as a trial or a review is misplaced. Check each level against the hierarchy. Another common gap is a table with no pattern section. Say what the evidence shows together. Writers also leave the qualitative study unexplained. Note where it fits. Avoid double counting a review and its included studies. Keep rows short. Check quality ratings against the guide. Close with the condition the pattern points to. Writers also forget to state the overall level of the body of evidence. Say it in a sentence.

Get a NURS 4151 Week 7 example written to your instructions

Send your retained studies or their citations, the Week 7 prompt and rubric, and the leveling system your course names. The table comes back with every row completed, levels and quality ratings assigned and justified in the legend, and a short narrative on the pattern. The first custom sample is free and arrives within 24-48 hours.

More NURS 4151 papers and BSN samples

NURS 4151 Week 7 questions, answered

Where does a qualitative study go on an evidence hierarchy?

Most hierarchies used in nursing place single qualitative studies near the lower levels, because they are ranked for answering intervention questions. The example levels its qualitative study accordingly and adds a note explaining that its evidence will inform implementation, such as why nurses skip rounds, rather than effectiveness. Graders tend to reward that note because it shows the level was understood, not just looked up.

Can a systematic review and its own included studies both appear?

They can, but the table has to say so. The example flags that one of its quasi-experimental studies is also included in the systematic review, so the same data is not counted twice when the synthesis weighs the evidence. Leaving the overlap unmentioned is a subtle error, and graders who notice it usually question the independence of the whole set.

Does the table include the study appraised in Week 5?

Yes, as one of its six rows, carried forward with the level and quality rating the earlier worksheet assigned. The table condenses that appraisal into a single line, which is only possible because the full judgment already exists. Where a later reading changes a rating, the example notes the revision in the legend so the two documents never quietly disagree.

Where can I find a free NURS 4151 Week 7 sample paper?

The six-study rounding leveling table is reproduced here with levels and quality, the qualitative note and the pattern the table shows.

How many studies does the NURS 4151 Week 7 table level?

Six, ordered from strongest to weakest with the Johns Hopkins hierarchy and quality guide.