Holmesglen, 2021. Prepared by Bob Ribbons Page 1 of 6Assignment 1: The Literature Review (sample papers)Undertaking a review of the literature is a part of your academic and professional developmentand is an important aspect of you becoming a critical user of research knowledge. Skills youdevelop in completing this task will hold you in good stead for the rest of your undergraduatestudies and on into your post graduate studies and professional life.Your literature review should be based on the following structure…IntroductionYou need to include a topic sentence that broadly states the issue upon which your review will bebased. The following sentence/s should Define specific terms and outline the background of thetopic. The final section of your introduction should indicate to the reader the aim of your review ofthe literature.Literature ReviewDivide your text into sections/topics as indicated in the last sentence of your introduction. Eachparagraph will be a synthesis of the many texts that you have chosen for your literature review.Because all research has its limitations, it is important to discuss the limitations of articles underexamination. Within this sections you may need to include a number of subheadings asappropriate to your selected topic.ConclusionThe conclusion restates the issue the paper addresses, synthesising the findings and tying thethreads of the paper together while highlighting areas for further research.The following are brief descriptions of techniques that you might use in your literature review.SummaryBriefly state the argument and main points of relevant research.SynthesisCombine ideas in order to form an integrated theory or system through critical evaluation,compare/contrast, etc.AnalysisClosely examine the elements or structure of the research and interpret through the lens of thefield.EvaluationAssess the research based on criteria you choose, state, and explain. Support your evaluationwith research.NOTE: Do not confuse a literature review with an annotated bibliography. A literature review is writtenin the style of an expository essay; it comprises an introduction, body (review) and conclusion. It isorganized around a specific idea or thesis. On the other hand, an annotated bibliography is simplyan alphabetized list of sources accompanied by comments. While a single source appears just oncein an annotated bibliography, it may be referred to numerous times in a literature review, dependingupon its importance in the field or relationship to other sources. Finally, a literature review includesits own in-text citations accompanied by a reference list.Holmesglen, 2021. Prepared by Bob Ribbons Page 2 of 6Rather than provide an entire sample paper, I have decided to provide a series of outstandingexamples of Literature Review components from a number of previously submitted papers.INTRODUCTIONAcute health care facilities are faced with the considerable challenge of providing effective andefficient care for the increased number of patients that are suffering from complex co-morbidities(Georgaka, Mparmparousi, & Vitos, 2012; Massey, Aitken, & Wendy, 2008). Unrecognisedclinical deterioration of acute ward patients continues to be one of the crucial issues in the healthcare sector (Odell, Victor, & Oliver, 2009; Preston & Flynn, 2010; Waldie, Day, & Tee, 2016;Zimlichman et al., 2012). The problem of unrecognised clinical deterioration leads to an increasednumber of adverse events such as: avoidable cardiac arrests, unnecessary re-admissions toemergency wards and morbidity and mortality. The problem also results in an increased financialburden to the health care sector (Ansell, Meyer, & Thompson, 2015; Kyriacos, Jelsma, & Jordan,2011; Rattray et al., 2011; Waldie et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2015).The aim of this paper is to review the literature related to the effect of Early Warning Score (EWS)systems on decreasing the rates of fatal adverse events among deteriorating patients as well aspotential factors that inhibit or facilitate the effectiveness of these systems.The student commences with a clear and concisestatement of the underlying clinical problem andsupports this statement with evidence from theliterature.Notice how the student has used a number ofsources to support their argument here. Thisrepresents synthesis of the available information.The student has identified the issue at hand andhas used the literature to support their position.A clearly stated aim of the review. The reader isleft in no doubt as to the direction of thisliterature review.Holmesglen, 2021. Prepared by Bob Ribbons Page 3 of 6Another example of a well-crafted Introduction…INTRODUCTIONAcute care hospitals are faced with many patients suffering from catheter associated urinary tractinfections (CAUTIs). Urinary tract infections (UTI’s) are the most prevalent hospital acquiredinfections. Out of the two million nosocomial infections recorded every year, UTI’s account for 40%(Laws & Rees, 2014; Rupp et al., 2004; Sangkhanan, Senaratana, Picheansathian, Moongtui, &Avant, 2014; Yin-Yin et al., 2013). In 2017 the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in HealthCare (ACSQHC) introduced the second edition of National Safety and Quality Health ServiceStandards (NSQHS). These standards were created in order to improve health outcomes for allpatients in an acute care setting. The third standard is “Preventing and Controlling HealthcareAssociated Infection Standard”, this standard aims to reduce the risk of patients developingpreventable nosocomial infections (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care,2017). The aim of this review is to explore the issues behind why rates of CAUTIs are so high and toestablish what research shows about what causes CAUTIs and therefore, what can be done to helpprevent these infections from occurring.I like how this student has highlighted the roleof the ACSQHC and clearly specified thestandard to which they will be addressing intheir review.The student has made the aim of their review veryclear and indicates that they will be addressingprevention strategies as part of the review.Again, this student’s introduction commences with a clearand concise statement of their topic with support from theliterature.Holmesglen, 2021. Prepared by Bob Ribbons Page 4 of 6An example of very well-crafted analysis and synthesis…LITERATURE REVIEWThe main influences on nurses’ perception are managerial support and feedback, confidentiality,respect of patients’ feelings and provision of training opportunities (Jeffs et al, 2013) and the workenvironment (Redley & Waugh, 2018). It is believed that bedside handover increases nurses’satisfaction (Hada et al, 2018; Kerr et al, 2013; Principe, 2017; Sand-Jecklin & Sherman, 2013),improves work performance and engagement (Radtke, 2013), promotes accountability (Labriole,2018) and, as they receive a more comprehensive report, enables them to confirm and addresspatient health issues better (Principe, 2017). There is also the perception of improved quality inthe communication between nurses and patients and their families (Labriole, 2018; Radtke,2013). Studies have shown a very high nurses’ preference for bedside handover (Chaboyer et al,2009; Whitty et al, 2017). It has been found that nurses may display anxiety and perceive abedside handover as more stressful (Bruton et al, 2016; Radtke, 2013; Small, 2017), but there ismuch dissatisfaction with the traditional process (Chaboyer et al, 2009), which was seen as timeinefficiently spent and avoiding accountability (Labriole, 2018) as well as tasks like changingdressing or giving medication not having been completed (Radtke, 2013). Opposed to thefindings of a positive reception of bedside handovers have been surveys that have seen nosignificant difference in nurses’ perception of traditional vs bedside handover, potentially evenseeing it as less effective (Manias & Watson, 2014; Rossell, 2018) and more demanding on theirtime (Tobiano et al, 2017). A reluctance by nurses in changing their practices was also found(Malfait et al, 2018, Radtke, 2013; Rossell, 2018).The student has very clearly analysed the information inthe literature and provided a succinct overview of thetopic. There has been a very sophisticated analysis ofthe literature which has subsequently been crafted into apersuasive argument. This is very high quality synthesis.Notice how this student has been able to providea contrast of findings from other literature. Again,this reflects a high level of analysis.Holmesglen, 2021. Prepared by Bob Ribbons Page 5 of 6Another example of a well-crafted Literature Review section…LITERATURE REVIEWThe Shock Index is a feasible diagnostic tool, which is defined by the ratio of cardiac rateto systemic blood pressure values. Being based on simple calculations, SI is more sensitiveto the degree of hypovolaemia and identification of patients, who require higher-level care(El Ayadi et al., 2016; Fröhlich et al., 2016; Nathan et al., 2016), Moreover, a number ofstudies suggest it has a high predictive value of mortality rate (Joseph et al., 2016; Odomet al., 2016; Schellenberg et al., 2017) and adverse patients’ outcomes (El Ayadi et al.,2016; Wei et al., 2018). Fröhlich et al. (2016), explored the results from 40,888 multipleinjured patients and confirmed validity of the SI as an effective indicator of the deterioratingclients required further resuscitation. Furthermore, the synopsis of data from 976 womenproposed by El Ayadi et al. (2016), demonstrates the high specificity and sensitivity of SIto indicate the impaired systemic volume among obstetric patients from low-incomecountries.On the other hand, some groups argued the effectiveness of SI in diverse medicalconditions (Joseph et al., 2016; Rau et al., 2016; Schellenberg et al., 2017; Wei et al.,2018). Li, Fanning, Patel and Parkin (2013), highlighted law sensitivity of SI for early stageof blood volume loss, when unclassified with shock patients still had a risk of seriousadverse outcomes, associated with the compromised systemic volume. Rau et al. (2016),similarly revealed that identification of hypovolaemic severity was accurate only for peoplewith moderate blood loss, while patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus and coronaryartery disease were falsely classified with SI due to associated instability of physiologicalparameters (Rau et al., 2016).The student has been able to compare and contrast the literature in these two paragraphsand has determined that there are conflicting views on the issue. Notice how they havebeen able to craft this comparison.The student indicates a number of studies have been conductedbut makes sure they have included these studies in their in-textcitation.Holmesglen, 2021. Prepared by Bob Ribbons Page 6 of 6An example of a well written Conclusion…CONCLUSIONThe assessment of early hypovolaemia in deteriorating patients is one of the mostchallenging diagnostic tasks, which clinicians often face in all acute settings. Despite thewidely implemented observation charts having warning thresholds to detect abnormalphysiological measurements, the primary onset of body fluid imbalance appears within thenormal range of vital signs. Moreover, the established thresholds have no alterations fordifferent clinical populations, which significantly distort the clinical picture of intravasculardecline. Additionally, the human factors influence accessibility of measured physiologicalvalues and timely appropriate fluid resuscitation. Regardless of the diagnostic strategiesused for identification and classification of severity of hypovolemia, all of them are basedon availability and accuracy of assessed physiological parameters. Hence, the proposedfurther development of existing observation charts, better workload management andimproved professional behaviour advance the safety and quality of health care leading tothe best possible patient outcomes..Notice how this conclusion reads more like asynthesis of the issue the paper addresses. It avoidssimply summarising the paper reiterating what hasbeen already stated.You need to avoid simply summarising your paper as part of your conclusion. This type ofconclusion usually starts with something that reads like…”In conclusion, this paper hasdiscussed x, then it addressed y and finally it talked about z”. Synthesising the findings of yourreview is more than this and requires you to tie the threads of the paper together whilehighlighting areas for further research.
