Evidence-based nursing practice planning and design analysis grid

Type of study Qualitative Quantitative
Study Jerlock, M., Gaston-Johansson, F. & Danielson, E. (2005). Living with unexplained chest pain [Issues in Clinical Nursing section] Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(8), 956-964, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01195.x Dumont, C. J. P., Keeling, A. W., Bourguignon, C., Sarembock, I. J. & Turner, M. (2006). Predictors of vascular complications post diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 25(3), 137-142.
Purpose Describing “patients experience of unexplained chest pain, and how the pain affects their everyday life” (p. 957). To identify risk factors for vascular complications following cardiac catheterization (CC) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Sampling method Convenience sampling approach was employed, on patients at an emergency department of a teaching hospital in Sweden. The inclusion criterion screened for aspects such as age in case of increase in cardiac disease-risk with age, absence of identifiable organic cause of chest pain and frequency of pains. Convenience sampling of patients who had undergone CC or PCI in three-year period from 2001 to 2003 was used. Inclusion criteria included age (> 21 years) and use of standard interventions (e.g. a 6F sheath for CC) for rendering care to individuals who have undergone such procedures.
Practice application Establishes the need to use illness narratives, to help nurses gain knowledge of unexplained chest pains, thus initiate interventions that betters the well-being of their clients. The study identifies risk factors such as advanced age, gender (female), presence of venous sheath and PCI, that may necessitate development of better care protocol for individuals exhibiting such risk-factors.
Level of evidence -The article presents level VI evidence, based on a 7-level hierarchy criterion, due to its qualitative design, and descriptive intent.-The strongest level of evidence (level I) comprises primarily a systematic review of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but may also encompass systematic review of non-randomized trials.

-The lowest level of evidence, in this criterion, is opinions provided by authorities and expert committees.

– The article presents level IV evidence, with its correlation-nature design. 
find the cost of your paper