| Citation |
Research Question |
Study Design |
Sample Size and Method |
Independent Variables and Measures |
Dependent Variables and Measures |
Results |
General Strengths |
General Weaknesses |
Overall Quality of Study |
Summary Statements for Practice |
Column12 |
Column13 |
| Powers, J., Peed, J., Burns, L., & Ziemba-Davis, M. (2012). Chlorhexidinebathing and microbial contamination in patients’ bath basins. American Journal of Critical Care, 21(5), 338-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2012242 |
What is the load of bacterial contaminants in wash basins when chlorhexidine gluconate solution is used in place of standard sap and water to wash patients? |
Quantitative – Quasi-experimental |
90 wash basins from a medical/surgical ICU – convenience sampling |
Patient Demographics; Basin variables (# of days basins were in use, # of days since pt’s last bath); Device variables (presence of central catheters, arterial catheters, PICC, ETT, trach, vent, Foley, fecal bags); Infection variables (infection, antibiotics, isolation – all yes/no) |
Bacterial growth in basins compared to growth in basins with soap and water from another study |
4.4% growth in chlorhexidine basins vs. 97.8% growth in soap and water basins; Growth in chlorhexidine basins occurred in female patients |
Bathing practices and basin storage/handling were standardized in chlorhexidine group |
Case-control study (RCT would be stronger evidence); can’t compare bathing practices and basin care and storage techniques because case-control design was used |
Very good |
Soap and water should not be used to bathe patients in ICU setting |
| Larson, E.L., Ciliberti, T., Chantler, C., Abraham, J., Lazaro, E.M., Venturanza, M., & Pancholi, P. (2004). Comparison of traditional and disposable bed baths in critically ill patients. American Journal of Critical Care, 13(3), 235-241. |
In critically ill adult patients, how effective are prepackaged disposable bed baths, versus traditional basin bed baths, in terms of time/quality of bath, microbial counts on skin, nurse satisfaction, and cost (O)? |
Quantitative – Quasi-experimental |
40 patients in cardiothoracic ICU, medical ICU, and general surgical ICU – convenience sampling |
Each study bath was observed and timed using a bath observation tool (included # of washcloths, pairs of gloves, # of bathers, products, duration of bath, quality aspects); Interrater reliability by observing several baths simulatneously was confirmed by study team members |
Microbiological sampling done before and after bath from patient skin; Nurse satisfaction and quality of bath were obtained through 6-question interview with nurses; cost was estimated through cost of product and nurses’ time |
Time/quality – no difference; microbial counts – no difference in total count, but significatnly higher gram-neg bacteria after traditional bath (p=.04); Nurse satisfaction – significant overall preference for disposable bath, no difference for quality, time significantly shorter to gather supplies for disposable bath (4.05 vs 1.90 minutes, p<.001); Overall cost higher for traditional bath (nurses’ time included in cost) |
Inter-rater reliability obtained for data collection; different types of patients sampled |
Patient satisfaction not assessed |
very good |
Disposable baths are a desireable form of bathing for patients in ICU settings |
| You will need 5 primary research articles in total. |
| PICOT: How effective is bathing with chlorhexidine or disposable products (I), versus traditional basin bathing (C), in reducing contamination (O) in critically ill patients (P)? |
| Databases: CINAHL (should have 2-3 academic databases) |
| Key Words: (nursing, bathing patients) – You will probably have a few more key words that you used when searching the literature |
