NURS 6052 Week 2 Search Iteration Log Example

Course	NURS 6052 Essentials of Evidence-Based Practice
Week	Week 2
Paper type	Search iteration log
Length	About 860 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Science in Nursing (MSN)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NURS 6052 Week 2

Search Iteration Log: Finding Evidence on Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing and Central Line Infections in Adult ICUs

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 6052: Essentials of Evidence-Based Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title calls the document a log, which is its true form: a record another person could rerun. The rubric's heaviest row here is reproducibility, and the title promises the dated, exact entries that make it possible.

Search Iteration Log: Finding Evidence on Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing and Central Line Infections in Adult ICUs

Log Header

PICOT question, as revised in Week 1, in shorthand: P, adults in the ICU with a central venous catheter; I, a 2 percent chlorhexidine gluconate cloth bath every day; C, the unit's current soap-and-water bath; O, CLABSI per 1,000 central line days; T, twelve months. Each element became one search concept, except time, which is handled at screening rather than in the search string.

Databases: CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE through PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. PubMed result counts below were retrieved on September 28, 2026, and will change as new records are added. CINAHL and Cochrane results are described by size and relevance rather than by count, because counts in those databases depend on the institution's subscription and the date of the search.

Approach: begin broad, move to controlled vocabulary in each database, then add limits one at a time and record what each change did, following the stepwise search approach described by Stillwell et al. (2010).

Attempt 1

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: PubMed. String: chlorhexidine bathing infection. Limits: none. Results: 565.

What changed: first attempt, keywords only.

What the change did: returned far too many records to screen, including studies of neonatal cord care, preoperative skin preparation, and oral care, because PubMed's automatic term mapping spread each keyword widely.

Attempt 2

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: PubMed. String: "Chlorhexidine"[Mesh] AND "Baths"[Mesh] AND "Catheter-Related Infections"[Mesh]. Limits: none. Results: 29.

What changed: replaced keywords with MeSH headings for each concept.

What the change did: sharply improved relevance, but likely missed recent articles not yet indexed with MeSH and articles that describe cloths without using the bathing heading.

Attempt 3

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: PubMed. String: ("Chlorhexidine"[Mesh] OR chlorhexidine[tiab]) AND ("Baths"[Mesh] OR bath*[tiab] OR cloth*[tiab]) AND ("Catheter-Related Infections"[Mesh] OR "central line associated bloodstream infection"[tiab] OR CLABSI[tiab]) AND ("Intensive Care Units"[Mesh] OR ICU[tiab] OR "intensive care"[tiab]). Limits: none. Results: 62.

What changed: combined each MeSH heading with title and abstract keywords using OR, and added the ICU setting as a fourth concept.

What the change did: recovered unindexed and recently published articles while keeping the set focused on the unit's setting; the added records included the two large ICU trials the team had heard about.

Attempt 4

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: PubMed. String: attempt 3 AND adult[mesh] AND 2014:2026[dp] AND english[la]. Results: 14.

What changed: added limits for adults, publication date from 2014, and English.

What the change did: the adult limit removed pediatric studies, the date limit focused on work since current ICU bundles were adopted, and the language limit matched the team's reading ability. Because the adult MeSH tag is not applied to every record, the team also screened the 62 records from attempt 3 by title to make sure no adult ICU trial was lost; one was, and it was added by hand.

What this page is doingEvery entry has the date, database, exact string, limits, and count, followed by two lines on what changed and what the change did. Those two lines are what distinguish a strategy from trial and error. The check for records lost to an unevenly applied limit is the kind of detail that shows the author understood how indexing works.

Attempt 5

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: CINAHL Complete. String: (MH "Chlorhexidine" OR chlorhexidine) AND (MH "Baths" OR bath* OR cloth*) AND (MH "Catheter-Related Infections" OR MH "Central Venous Catheters" OR CLABSI OR "central line associated bloodstream infection") AND (MH "Intensive Care Units+" OR ICU OR "intensive care"). Limits: peer reviewed, published 2014 to 2026, English. Results: a manageable set that overlapped heavily with PubMed and added several nursing journal articles on implementation.

What changed: moved to CINAHL and used CINAHL Subject Headings (MH) rather than MeSH; CINAHL headings are similar in name but are applied by different indexers, and the "+" explodes the ICU heading to include its narrower terms.

What the change did: added nursing-focused implementation reports and quality improvement projects that were not indexed in MEDLINE.

Attempt 6

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: Cochrane Library. String: chlorhexidine AND (bath* OR cloth*) in title, abstract, keywords. Limits: Cochrane Reviews and trials. Results: a small set including trial records already found and reviews addressing chlorhexidine for infection prevention more broadly.

What changed: searched a database of systematic reviews and trials, because an intervention question should seek the highest level of evidence first.

What the change did: confirmed that no Cochrane review addressed exactly this question, so the team would rely on published systematic reviews in journals and on the individual trials.

Qualitative Strand

Date: September 28, 2026. Database: PubMed. String: ("Chlorhexidine"[Mesh] OR chlorhexidine[tiab]) AND (bath*[tiab]) AND (nurs*[tiab]) AND (qualitative[tiab] OR interview*[tiab] OR "focus group*"[tiab] OR perception*[tiab]). Results: 6.

Purpose: this strand is separate from the effect search. It looks for studies of how nurses, nursing assistants, and patients experience daily chlorhexidine bathing, because those studies will inform implementation even though they cannot answer whether bathing reduces infection. One relevant study examined nurses' perspectives on sustaining daily chlorhexidine bathing in an ICU (Musuuza et al., 2017). The same concepts were searched in CINAHL with the qualitative study limit, which added one further interview study.

Stopping Rule

The search stopped when two further variations, adding "decolonization" as a synonym and searching the reference lists of the two most recent systematic reviews, returned only studies already found. The team judged that the effect evidence had been reached and moved to screening and appraisal (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023).

References

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Musuuza, J. S., Roberts, T. J., Carayon, P., & Safdar, N. (2017). Assessing the sustainability of daily chlorhexidine bathing in the intensive care unit of a Veteran's Hospital by examining nurses' perspectives and experiences. BMC Infectious Diseases, 17, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2180-8

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e

What the NURS 6052 Week 2 instructions ask for

Week 2 of NURS 6052 usually asks for a log of your literature search. You record each search attempt with the exact string, database, limits, date and results, explain each change and stop when a stated rule is met. Faculty check reproducibility first. Cite search guidance in APA 7. Failed searches belong in the log because they show method. A qualitative strand can matter even for an outcome question. Your counts will differ from the example's because databases change. NURS 6052 faculty want every attempt numbered with string, database, limits, date, count, change and reason. State a stopping rule. Keep failed attempts in the log. Include a qualitative strand if the question touches adherence or experience.

How this NURS 6052 Week 2 example is built

Four pages, mostly a running log. Its header holds the revised PICOT question and names three databases: CINAHL, PubMed for MEDLINE, and Cochrane. Each numbered entry is a short block with the date, database, exact string, limits and result count, followed by two lines: what changed from the previous attempt and what that change did. The first attempt is a bare keyword string returning far too much to screen; the second swaps in MeSH and CINAHL subject headings; the third adds limits for adults, peer review and a date range, each explained. A separate strand, labeled as such, looks for qualitative work on how nurses and patients experience daily chlorhexidine bathing. The log closes with a stopping rule: the point at which new attempts returned only studies already found.

Reading the NURS 6052 Week 2 rubric

Reproducibility heads most rubrics here, and a log earns it only when each string can be pasted into the named database and rerun. The change-and-reason lines draw the next share; entries that record new strings without explaining the change read as trial and error rather than strategy. Controlled vocabulary is checked by database, since a MeSH heading pasted into CINAHL signals confusion about how indexing works. A qualitative strand, where the prompt asks for more than one design, is often where MSN sections separate a thorough search from a narrow one. Limits cost points when they appear without a rationale, a date range especially. A stopping point claimed without evidence tends to draw a comment, while one tied to repeated results is rewarded. Minor deductions go to missing dates and unlabeled databases.

Common NURS 6052 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Search logs lose credit when strings cannot be pasted and rerun. Copy them exactly. Another common gap is changes with no reason. Explain each. Writers also delete failed attempts. Keep them. Avoid stopping without a rule. State why the search ended. Use subject headings. Record limits. Close with the studies retained. Writers also forget to search a second database. Use both PubMed and CINAHL. Another frequent slip is filters that silently remove trials, such as language or age limits. Note each filter. Check that the retained list matches the final attempt. Record the date of the last search.

Get a NURS 6052 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Send the Week 2 prompt and rubric with your PICOT question and any databases your library requires. The log you get back numbers each attempt, explains every change, and includes a separate strand for qualitative studies when your question calls for one. Counts reflect the day the search is run. The first request is free, returned within 24-48 hours.

More NURS 6052 papers and MSN samples

NURS 6052 Week 2 questions, answered

Should failed searches really stay in the log?

Yes, and the example keeps its first attempt precisely because it failed. A string that returned too much to screen explains why subject headings came next, and a reader following the log can watch the strategy improve. Prompts asking for documented search strategy usually reward that visible correction more than a single polished string presented as if it had worked the first time.

Why search for qualitative studies on an infection question?

Because the effectiveness question is only half of what a unit needs. Trials can show whether chlorhexidine bathing lowers infection rates; interview studies show why staff skip baths or why patients decline them, which bears on adherence later. Many NURS 6052 matrices ask for more than one design, and the example's separate strand supplies it without muddying the main search.

Will my counts match the example's counts?

Almost certainly not, and nobody grading expects them to. Indexes add records constantly, and a changed limit or truncation symbol moves the totals. The method is what should match: subject headings beside keywords, each string recorded verbatim, each revision explained. A custom log is run against your own PICOT question on a stated date, and its totals belong to that date alone.

Where can I find a free NURS 6052 Week 2 sample paper?

The chlorhexidine search log is printed here with six attempts, each change and reason, the qualitative strand and the stopping rule.

How many search attempts are logged in NURS 6052 Week 2?

Six, each with the exact string, database, limits, date, count and the reason for the change.