NRS 465 Week 6 Benchmark – Literature Review

Benchmark – Literature Review

Literature reviews are important when implementing proposed capstone projects as they provide evidence to support the PICOT question developed by a researcher for evidence-based practice (EBP) interventions. The review of literature also identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review of the proposed capstone change project based on its PICOT question. The review summarizes the studies’ purpose, compares sample populations, synthesizes their conclusions, looks at the limitations of the articles, and integrates recommendations for further research.

PICOT Question

In adult burn patients (P), how does the implementation of strict sterilization and decontamination of wound dressing equipment and guideline protocol (I), compared to less-intensive (standard) sterilization protocol (C), affect the rate of nosocomial infections in the burn unit (O) within six months (T)?

Summary of the Purpose of the Studies

The selected study articles had various purposes. The study by Kim et al. (2025) sought to determine the rate or prevalence of patient-patient pathogen transmission that necessitates wound colonization at a tertiary burn center. On its part, the article by McWilliams et al. (2021) assessed the effects of implementing the best practice infection prevention and control bundle on burn wound nosocomial infections in a burn unit. The studies by Mozafari et al. (2024) and Riza et al. (2025) all examined different aspects of infection prevention and control in burn wound units and among affected patients. The studies evaluate risk factors and best practices to address wounds, especially chronic burn wounds. Yang et al. (2024), Otaghi et al. (2024), Odhah et al. (2025), and Hu et al. (2023) all focus on various aspects of infection prevention and control in burn wound settings, including the role of nurses, the impact of having sufficient knowledge, and best practices to reduce and avoid nosocomial infections among burn wound patients. Therefore, all eight articles focus on infection prevention and control in burn wound units in various healthcare settings.

Comparison of Sample Population

An appropriate sample population is a critical aspect of getting valid, credible, and dependable research outcomes or findings that can be translated into clinical practice to demonstrate the clinical significance of evidence-based practice (EBP) interventions. As such, the selected articles used diverse sample populations where some deployed significant research subjects while others used small sample sizes. Yang et al. (2024) studied the largest sample size, where they integrated 62,819 aspects from 60 studies concerning pathogen patterns. Mozafari et al. (2024) sampled 1659 patients, while McWilliams et al. (2021) had a sample size of 626 patients. Studies by Kim et al. (2025), Riza et al. (2025), Otaghi et al. (2024), Odhah et al. (2025), and Hu et al. (2023) had small sample sizes, which are appropriate for better outcomes. The implication is that the reviewed articles had diverse sample sizes based on their research aims and settings.

Synthesis of Studies Conclusions

The reviewed articles make appropriate and critical conclusions based on their findings. Using a thematic analysis, the core themes that emerge from the articles include importance of protocols and policies on infection prevention and control in burn units, significance of education and training on nosocomial infections among burn patients, integration of best practices emanating from existing evidence to prevent and reduce burn wound infections, and an interdisciplinary approach to integration of best interventions to manage infections and improve quality of care among patients. Kim et al. (2025) emphasize the importance of understanding pathogen patterns and transmission of infections among patients in burn units because of the delicate nature of the burns. Developing protocols and policies allows organizations to integrate best practices in infection prevention and control (McWilliams et al. 2021; Riza et al., 2025, Yang et al., 2025; Otaghi et al., 2024). Integrating best practices also requires nurses to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of nosocomial infections, especially the increased risk for infections among patients, as illustrated in the studies (Odhah et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2023). The studies also emphasize the role of interdisciplinary collaboration and approaches in identifying and managing various types of wounds and the efficacy of certain dressing procedures, particularly sterilization and decontamination, to lower infections (Hu et al., 2023; Otaghi et al., 2025; and Kim et al., 2025). The articles coalesce on these critical themes to illustrate the diverse components that affect wound care and management among patients with burn wounds.

Summary of Limitations of the Studies

The reviewed studies had significant limitations that hindered the overall application of their findings. Prevalent limitations of the studies include those caused by the experimental or research design used, since each research design presents challenges. For instance, Hu et al. (2023) could not achieve a double-blind observation due to ethical requirements, while a majority of the studies had small sample sizes of less than 100 subjects. Outcomes from studies with small sample sizes may be challenging to generalize to larger populations. The other limitation from the studies could be possible biases by researchers and even the subjects, especially those that used qualitative designs, such as self-administered questionnaires, like Odhah et al. (2025). The implication is that all the studies present various limitations that affect the credibility of their findings or outcomes.

Conclusion

The review of the selected articles shows sufficient support for the PICOT question and the capstone change project. The evidence from the review of the articles demonstrates increased efficacy of implementing infection prevention and control protocols and guidelines through a comprehensive policy framework at the organizational level. The articles recommend future studies to validate their findings and consolidate knowledge among healthcare providers on the significance of evidence-based policy measures to prevent and control healthcare-associated infections among burn wound patients in trauma centers like Jacobi Medical Center.

References

Hu, J., Lin, Y., Cui, C., Zhang, F., Su, T., Guo, K., & Chen, T. (2023). Clinical efficacy of wet

dressing combined with chitosan wound dressing in the treatment of deep second‐degree

burn wounds: A prospective, randomised, single‐blind, positive control clinical trial.

International Wound Journal, 20(3), 699-705. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13911

Kim, P. J., Gallo, L., Chen, J., Yuan, M., Gallo, M., Main, C., & Coroneos, C. (2025). A 10-year

retrospective review of patient-to-patient transmitted pathogens in culture-positive burn

wounds at a tertiary burn center. Plastic Surgery, 33(4), 646-655.

DOI: 10.1177/22925503241249760

McWilliams, T. L., Twigg, D., Hendricks, J., Wood, F. M., Ryan, J., & Keil, A. (2021). The

implementation of an infection control Bundle within a Total Care Burns Unit. Burns,

47(3): 569-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2019.12.012

Mozafari, N., Abbasi Montazeri, E., Moogahi, S., & Alavi, S. M. A. (2024).

Healthcare‐Associated Infections’ Characteristics Among Burn Patients and Risk Factors

of Mortality: A Study Based on Data From a Tertiary Center in Iran: Nosocomial

Infections Among Burn Patients. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical

Microbiology, 2024(1), 8707245. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/8707245

Odhah, M. A., Haza’a, A. A., Al-Ahdal, S. A., Al-Awar, M. S., Al-Jabri, M. M., Al-haguri, B.

A., … & Hjjaji, M. A. (2025). Nurses’ Knowledge and Practice towards Prevention of

Infection for Burn Patients in the Burn Center at Sana’a City, Yemen. JPRAS Open.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2025.09.014

Otaghi, M., Bastami, M., Veisani, Y., Taghinejad, H., Vasiee, A., & Azadi, A. (2024). The effect

of the burn wounds dressing and mechanical debridement training package on nursing

interns’ knowledge and executive functions: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of

Research Development in Nursing and Midwifery, 21(3): 15-20.

DOI: 10.29252/jgbfnm 21.3.15

Riza, S. M., Porosnicu, A. L., Hariga, C. S., & Sinescu, R. D. (2025). Chronic Wound

Management in Romania: A Survey on Practices, Protocols, and PRP Efficacy. Medicina,

61(6), 1085. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61061085

Yang, Y., Zeng, Q., Hu, G., Wang, Z., Chen, Z., Zhou, L., … & Li, G. (2024). Distribution of

Nosocomial Pathogens and Antimicrobial Resistance among Patients with Burn Injuries

in China: A Comprehensive Research Synopsis and Meta-Analysis. Infectious Diseases

and Therapy, 13(6), 1291-1313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-024-00983-6

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Assessment Traits

Benchmark

Requires Lopeswrite

Assessment Description

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.

A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the PICOT question from the earlier “PICOT Question” template and information from the “Literature Evaluation Table” assignment to develop a review.

Using eight peer-reviewed articles, write 750-1,000-word review that includes the following sections:

Introduction section (including PICOT Question)
A summary of the purpose of the studies
A comparison of sample populations
A synthesis of the studies’ conclusions (when looking at all of the studies together, group the conclusions by themes )
A summary of the limitations of the studies
A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research

You are required to cite a minimum of eight peer-reviewed articles to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the past 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

RN-BSN

4.1: Advance the scholarship of nursing.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education

This assignment aligns to AACN Core Competencies 4.1

Skip to main contentEnable accessibility for low visionOpen the accessibility menu

Benchmark – Literature Review – Rubric

Rubric Criteria

Total40 points

Criterion	1. Unsatisfactory	2. Insufficient	3. Approaching	4. Acceptable	5. Target
Introduction Provide an introduction section, including the PICOT question.	0 points An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is missing.	1.3 points An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is inaccurate or incomplete.	1.5 points An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is present, but lacks detail.	1.7 points An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is mostly detailed.	2 points An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is thorough and accurate.
Purpose of Studies Summarize the purpose of each study.	0 points A summary of the purpose of each study is missing.	2.6 points A summary of the purpose of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	3 points A summary of the purpose of each study is present but lacks detail.	3.4 points A summary of the purpose of each study is mostly detailed.	4 points A summary of the purpose of each study is thorough and accurate.
Comparison of Sample Populations Compare the sample population(s) of each study.	0 points A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is missing.	2.6 points A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	3 points A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is present but lacks detail.	3.4 points A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is mostly detailed.	4 points A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is thorough and accurate.
Synthesis of Studies’ Conclusion (B) Synthesize the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes. The student demonstrates an understanding of evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning. (C4.1)	0 points A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is missing. The student was unable to incorporate evidence-based practice to advance the scholarship of learning.	6.5 points A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is inaccurate or incomplete. The student demonstrates an inconsistent ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.	7.5 points A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is present but lacks detail. The student demonstrates a general ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.	8.5 points A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is mostly detailed. The student demonstrates an adequate ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.	10 points A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is thorough and accurate. The student demonstrates a clear ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.
Summary of the Limitations of the Study Summarize the limitation(s) of each study.	0 points A summary the limitation(s) of each study is missing.	2.6 points A summary the limitation(s) of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.	3 points A summary the limitation(s) of each study is present but lacks detail.	3.4 points A summary the limitation(s) of each study is mostly detailed.	4 points A summary the limitation(s) of each study is thorough and accurate.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research Include a conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research.	0 points A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is missing.	2.6 points A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is inaccurate or incomplete.	3 points A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is present but lacks detail.	3.4 points A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is mostly detailed.	4 points A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is thorough and accurate.
Thesis, Position, or Purpose Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.	0 points The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.	1.82 points The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.	2.1 points The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.	2.38 points The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.	2.8 points The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.	0 points No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.	1.82 points Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.	2.1 points The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.	2.38 points The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.	2.8 points Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
Evidence Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.	0 points Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.	1.56 points Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.	1.8 points Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.	2.04 points Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.	2.4 points Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.
Mechanics of Writing Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.	0 points Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.	1.56 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.	1.8 points Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.	2.04 points Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.	2.4 points No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
Format/Documentation Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.	0 points Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.	1.04 points Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.	1.2 points Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.	1.36 points Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.	1.6 points No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

Criterion

1. Unsatisfactory

2. Insufficient

3. Approaching

4. Acceptable

5. Target

Introduction

Provide an introduction section, including the PICOT question.

0 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is missing.

1.3 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is inaccurate or incomplete.

1.5 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is present, but lacks detail.

1.7 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is mostly detailed.

2 points

An introduction section, including the PICOT question, is thorough and accurate.

Purpose of Studies

Summarize the purpose of each study.

0 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is missing.

2.6 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is present but lacks detail.

3.4 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is mostly detailed.

4 points

A summary of the purpose of each study is thorough and accurate.

Comparison of Sample Populations

Compare the sample population(s) of each study.

0 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is missing.

2.6 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is present but lacks detail.

3.4 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is mostly detailed.

4 points

A comparison of the sample population(s) of each study is thorough and accurate.

Synthesis of Studies’ Conclusion (B)

Synthesize the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes. The student demonstrates an understanding of evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning. (C4.1)

0 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is missing. The student was unable to incorporate evidence-based practice to advance the scholarship of learning.

6.5 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is inaccurate or incomplete. The student demonstrates an inconsistent ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

7.5 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is present but lacks detail. The student demonstrates a general ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

8.5 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is mostly detailed. The student demonstrates an adequate ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

10 points

A synthesis of the conclusion of each study, grouping the studies by themes, is thorough and accurate. The student demonstrates a clear ability to incorporate evidence-based practice that will advance the scholarship of learning.

Summary of the Limitations of the Study

Summarize the limitation(s) of each study.

0 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is missing.

2.6 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is inaccurate or incomplete.

3 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is present but lacks detail.

3.4 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is mostly detailed.

4 points

A summary the limitation(s) of each study is thorough and accurate.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research

Include a conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research.

0 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is missing.

2.6 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is inaccurate or incomplete.

3 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is present but lacks detail.

3.4 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is mostly detailed.

4 points

A conclusion, incorporating recommendation for further research, is thorough and accurate.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

1.82 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

2.1 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2.38 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

2.8 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

1.82 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

2.1 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2.38 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

2.8 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

Evidence

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

1.56 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1.8 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2.04 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

2.4 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

Mechanics of Writing

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

1.56 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1.8 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2.04 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

2.4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

Format/Documentation

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

1.04 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1.2 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

1.36 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

1.6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.