While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue

Benchmark – Literature Review

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

Expert Answer and Explanation

Literature Review

Handover communication or shift reporting is an essential process that determines the quality of care patients receive. It is a process that is highly dependent on the quality of information nurses exchange with each other, which in turn determines the quality of decisions made to ensure that there is continuity of care from one shift to another. There are different shift reporting approaches that healthcare facilities use. However, each approach has its own merits and demerits. Currently, the target healthcare facility is using a traditional shift reporting approach where the transaction of information is done away from the bedside.

While the traditional approach has been cited to save time during shift reporting, several challenges have emerged as a concern to patient quality, including the accuracy of the information documented and the inclusion of the patient in the care process. For this reason, a quality improvement initiative will be formulated to improve the handover communication process.

The change initiative will involve implementing a bedside shift reporting system guided by the following PICOT question; In an acute care setting (P) how does bedside shift reporting (I) compared to traditional shift reporting (C) affect patient satisfaction (O) within three months after intervention implementation (T)? The purpose of this paper will be to provide a literature review of evidence focusing on the PICOT question.

Summary of the Purpose of the Studies

From the identified literature, the authors had different intentions with their studies, which were relevant to the PICOT. For example, a study by Jimmerson et al. (2021) wanted to identify the handover communication experiences of acute care clinical nurses and nursing supervisors regarding appropriate content for bedside shift reporting (BSR) and barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of BSR. This was similar to McCloskey et al. (2019) whose study included patients and family members other than nurses. Studies with similar goals included a study by Grimshaw et al. (2020), Wiklund et al. (2020), and Oxelmark et al. (2020).

A study by Forde et al. (2020) had a different purpose which was to describe the structures, processes, and content of bedside handover at the change of nursing shift in an acute-care context. Another study with a different purpose was the study by Sun et al. (2020) which aimed to describe the relationship between inpatient falls, which is a quality aspect, and BSR. A study done by Clari et al. (2021) wanted to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the qualitative literature on the barriers to and facilitators of BSR which was almost similar to Jimmerson et al. (2021) that also focused on barriers and facilitators to BSR as experienced by nurses and patients.

Comparison of Sample Populations

The studies had different sample populations, with most focusing the sample collection on acute care settings, which is similar to the PICOT question. For example, Jimmerson et al. (2021) study had a sample comprising 22 clinical nurses and nursing supervisors in an acute care setting. The study by Oxelmark et al. (2020) focused on 218 adult medical patients and 101 registered nurses also in an acute care setting. The study by Grimshaw et al. (2020) had a sample comprising seven medical, surgical, and intensive care unit nurses in a community hospital.

Wiklund et al. (2020) study was based on a child delivery unit focusing on 19 couples. In the study by Forde et al. (2020), the researchers’ sample comprised 30 episodes of bedside handover, while Sun et al. (2020) sample comprised 9,693 observations recorded from 11 units at four different hospitals over 281 shifts. Two studies were systematic reviews; the study by McCloskey et al. (2019), whose sample was collected from 12 qualitative publications, and the study by Clari et al. (2021), which had twenty-four articles included in the review.

A Synthesis of the Studies’ Conclusions

From the findings, different themes emerged concerning the use of BSR. The first theme is effectiveness, where a majority of the studies identified it as a suitable method for improving patient outcomes. One such study is the study by Clari et al. (2021), where the authors noted that BSR enhances patient safety and increases satisfaction and recognition among patients and nurses, with Sun et al. (2020) reporting a positive correlation between BSR and patient safety. Wiklund et al. (2020), on the other hand, noted that patients after participating in BSR felt they were treated professionally felt involved during the handover.

However, it was also noted that handover was nurse-dominated, with the outgoing nurse having a significant influence on the degree of patient participation (Forde et al., 2020). Similarly, from the findings made by Oxelmark et al. (2020), it was noted that patients had a stronger preference for BSR compared to nurses, perceiving their participation during handover as highly important.

Another theme from the findings relates to the challenges and barriers to implementing BSR, which include time, where nurses’ workflow needs to be taken into consideration (Jimmerson et al., 2021), continuity of care, visualization, and challenges in the communication of discreet information (Grimshaw et al., 2020). However, McCloskey et al. (2019) noted that the challenges with implementing BSR can be overcome with adaptive practices.

The third theme focused on consideration for the content shared during BSR. For example, Jimmerson et al. (2021) noted in their findings that the BSR approach should be modified, the process and specific critical content should be individualized to become meaningful for all parties involved, and certain critical content be discussed outside the patient’s room while others inside the patient’s room. Other considerations from the findings, as reported by McCloskey et al. (2019), include upholding patient confidentiality and privacy and factoring in the varying desire and ability to participate in the BSR during implementation.

Limitations of the Studies

From the studies, some of the limitations that were identified include low sample populations, especially in qualitative studies, which could affect the level of generalizability of research findings. Another limitation that emerged with the systematic reviews selected was that they failed to give an accurate sample of participants from the primary research used. Another limitation was that most of the studies reviewed failed to indicate the influence of the research setting, for example, leadership and adoption of BSR, which is an area that should be considered for further research.

Conclusion

From the findings and limitations of the studies reviewed, one recommendation is to conduct further research on the facilitators of BSR. Additionally, more research should be conducted on approaches to increase engagement among nurses and patients and the content to share with patients during handover. Nonetheless, BSR is an effective approach in enhancing patient involvement in their care and consequently improving their satisfaction and outcomes, as noted in the literature.

References

Clari, M., Conti, A., Chiarini, D., Martin, B., Dimonte, V., & Campagna, S. (2021). Barriers to and facilitators of bedside nursing handover: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36(4), E51–E58. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000564

Forde, M. F., Coffey, A., & Hegarty, J. (2020). Bedside handover at the change of nursing shift: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 29(19-20), 3731–3742. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15403

Grimshaw, J., Hatch, D., Willard, M., & Abraham, S. (2020). A qualitative study of the change-of-shift report at the patient’s bedside. The Health Care Manager, 39(2), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCM.0000000000000291

Jimmerson, J., Wright, P., Cowan, P. A., King-Jones, T., Beverly, C. J., & Curran, G. (2021). Bedside shift report: Nurses’ opinions based on their experiences. Nursing Open, 8(3), 1393–1405. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.755

McCloskey, R. M., Furlong, K. E., & Hansen, L. (2019). JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 17(5), 754–792. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003737

Oxelmark, L., Whitty, J. A., Ulin, K., Chaboyer, W., Gonçalves, A. S. O., & Ringdal, M. (2020). Patients prefer clinical handover at the bedside; nurses do not: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 105, 103444.

Sun, C., Fu, C. J., O’Brien, J., Cato, K. D., Stoerger, L., & Levin, A. (2020). Exploring practices of bedside shift report and hourly rounding. Is there an impact on patient falls?. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 50(6), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000897

Wiklund, I., Sahar, Z., Papadopolou, M., & Löfgren, M. (2020). Parental experience of bedside handover during childbirth: A qualitative interview study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 24, 100496.

Place your order now for a similar assignment and get fast, cheap and best quality work written by our expert level  assignment writers.Use Coupon Code: NEW30 to Get 30% OFF Your First Order

The 5 C’s of Writing an Effective Literature Review: A Complete Guide

Writing a literature review can feel overwhelming, especially when you’re staring at dozens of academic sources and wondering how to synthesize them into a coherent, scholarly piece. Whether you’re a graduate student working on your thesis or a researcher preparing for publication, understanding the fundamental principles of literature review writing is crucial for academic success.

The good news is that there’s a proven framework that can guide you through this process: the 5 C’s of writing a literature review. This systematic approach has helped countless students and researchers create compelling, well-structured literature reviews that demonstrate deep understanding of their field.

What Are the 5 C’s of Literature Review Writing?

The 5 C’s represent five essential actions you should take when writing any literature review:

• Cite – Properly reference all sources
• Compare – Examine similarities between studies
• Contrast – Highlight differences and disagreements
• Critique – Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses
• Connect – Link findings to your research question

These five components work together to create a comprehensive analysis that goes beyond simple summarization. Instead of just listing what each source says, you’re actively engaging with the literature to build a compelling narrative around your research topic.

1. Cite: Building Your Foundation

Citation forms the backbone of any effective literature review. When you cite sources properly, you’re not just avoiding plagiarism – you’re establishing credibility and allowing readers to trace your argument’s development.

Best practices for citing in literature reviews:

• Maintain focus on literature directly relevant to your research problem
• Use a consistent citation style throughout your work
• Include both seminal works and recent developments in your field
• Balance direct quotes with paraphrasing to maintain your voice
• Ensure every claim is supported by appropriate citations

Remember that citations in literature reviews serve a dual purpose: they give credit to original authors while demonstrating the breadth and depth of your research. A well-cited literature review shows readers that you’ve thoroughly investigated your topic and understand the scholarly conversation surrounding it.

2. Compare: Finding Common Ground

Comparison involves identifying similarities, patterns, and consensus among different sources. This step helps you understand where researchers agree and what established knowledge exists in your field.

When comparing sources, look for:

• Similar methodological approaches across studies
• Consistent findings or conclusions
• Shared theoretical frameworks
• Common themes or concepts
• Overlapping research questions or objectives

For example, if you’re reviewing literature on online learning effectiveness, you might find that multiple studies consistently show positive outcomes for self-motivated learners. Highlighting these commonalities helps establish what the field generally accepts as true.

3. Contrast: Illuminating Differences

While comparison shows agreement, contrast reveals disagreements, gaps, and varying perspectives in the literature. These differences often point to areas where further research is needed – potentially including your own study.

Key areas to contrast include:

• Conflicting research findings or conclusions
• Different methodological approaches to similar questions
• Varying theoretical perspectives on the same phenomenon
• Contradictory recommendations or implications
• Studies that challenge established assumptions

Don’t shy away from disagreements in the literature. These contrasts demonstrate your critical thinking skills and help justify the need for additional research. They also show that you understand the complexity and nuance within your field.

4. Critique: Evaluating Quality and Reliability

Critique involves making informed judgments about the quality, reliability, and relevance of the sources you’ve reviewed. This is where your analytical skills really shine, as you evaluate each study’s contributions and limitations.

Elements to critique include:

• Research methodology and design appropriateness
• Sample size and representativeness
• Data collection and analysis techniques
• Potential biases or limitations
• Generalizability of findings
• Theoretical contributions to the field

When critiquing, be fair and balanced. Acknowledge both strengths and weaknesses, and explain why certain approaches, findings, or methods seem more reliable or persuasive than others. This critical analysis demonstrates your expertise and helps readers understand which sources deserve the most weight.

5. Connect: Linking Literature to Your Research

The final C – connect – is perhaps the most important. This is where you tie everything together, showing how the existing literature relates to your specific research question, hypothesis, or problem statement.

Effective connections demonstrate:

• How existing research supports or challenges your approach
• Gaps in current knowledge that your study addresses
• Theoretical frameworks that inform your research design
• How your work builds upon or extends previous findings
• The significance and necessity of your research contribution

Without strong connections, your literature review becomes merely a summary of other people’s work. The connection phase transforms your review into a compelling argument for why your research matters and how it fits within the broader scholarly conversation.

Putting the 5 C’s Together: A Literature Review Example

Let’s see how these elements work together in practice. Imagine you’re writing a literature review about remote work productivity:

Cite: You reference key studies on remote work, productivity measures, and workplace flexibility from the past decade.

Compare: You identify that most studies agree remote work can increase individual productivity when proper technology and communication tools are available.

Contrast: However, you note that some studies show decreased team collaboration and innovation in fully remote environments, while others suggest hybrid models maintain both individual and team effectiveness.

Critique: You evaluate the methodological approaches, noting that studies using objective productivity metrics tend to show more positive results than those relying solely on self-reported measures.

Connect: Finally, you connect these findings to your research question about optimal remote work policies, showing how existing literature supports your hypothesis while revealing gaps your study will address.

Tips for Writing an Effective Literature Review

Beyond the 5 C’s, consider these additional strategies:

Organization matters: Structure your review thematically, chronologically, or methodologically – whichever best serves your argument and helps readers follow your logic.

Maintain your voice: While you’re discussing other people’s work, your literature review should still reflect your analysis and perspective. Don’t disappear behind a wall of citations.

Keep it focused: Every source should serve a purpose in building your argument. If a study doesn’t contribute to your narrative, consider whether it belongs in your review.

Update regularly: Literature reviews aren’t static documents. As new research emerges, be prepared to update your analysis and potentially revise your conclusions.

Common Literature Review Mistakes to Avoid

Even with the 5 C’s framework, writers sometimes make these critical errors:

• Summary syndrome: Simply describing each source without analysis or synthesis
• Cherry-picking: Only including sources that support your predetermined conclusion
• Outdated focus: Relying too heavily on older sources while ignoring recent developments
• Weak organization: Jumping between topics without clear transitions or logical flow
• Missing connections: Failing to clearly link the literature to your specific research question

The Benefits of Following the 5 C’s

When you consistently apply the 5 C’s framework, several benefits emerge:

Your literature review becomes more engaging and persuasive because you’re actively analyzing rather than simply reporting. Readers can follow your reasoning and understand how you’ve reached your conclusions.

You demonstrate sophisticated critical thinking skills that distinguish advanced academic writing from undergraduate-level work. This analytical depth is essential for graduate-level research and professional publications.

Your research becomes more credible because you’ve thoroughly examined existing knowledge and can clearly articulate how your work contributes to the field.

Conclusion

The 5 C’s of literature review writing – cite, compare, contrast, critique, and connect – provide a roadmap for creating effective literature reviews that engage with scholarship at a sophisticated level. Rather than overwhelming yourself with the enormity of synthesizing multiple sources, you can approach each source systematically, asking yourself how it fits within these five categories.

Remember that writing an effective literature review is a skill that improves with practice. Don’t expect perfection on your first attempt. Instead, focus on applying the 5 C’s consistently, and you’ll find that your literature reviews become more analytical, persuasive, and valuable contributions to your field.

Whether you’re working on a thesis, dissertation, journal article, or research proposal, the 5 C’s framework will help you create literature reviews that demonstrate your expertise and advance scholarly knowledge in your discipline. The key is to move beyond simple summary toward critical analysis that reveals your deep understanding of the research landscape and your unique contribution to ongoing scholarly conversations.