What should change on the unit, how strongly the evidence backs each part, and what stays the same, set out in a composite NU325 practice change recommendation for Unit 8. Searches like "nu 325 unit 8 assignment example", "nu325 unit 8 sample" and "nu325 unit 8 example" land here.
Stop the Clock, Check Every Shift, Keep the 48-Hour Rule: A Three-Part Practice Change Recommendation
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU325: Evidence-Based Nursing
Unit 8 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Composite unit written as a model document. The recommendation has not been piloted.
The Recommendation
On the adult medical unit: (1) stop replacing peripheral IV catheters on a fixed schedule; (2) assess every peripheral IV site each shift with the Visual Infusion Phlebitis score and ask daily whether the line is still needed, removing it on clinical signs or when it is not; (3) replace within 48 hours any catheter inserted when aseptic technique could not be assured.
Part 1: End Scheduled 96-Hour Replacement
Evidence: two randomized trials and a systematic review show no more phlebitis when catheters stay until clinically indicated (Rickard et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2019). Current infusion standards support removal on clinical indication rather than by schedule (Gorski et al., 2021). Rating: strong and compelling for phlebitis, using Johns Hopkins synthesis language (Dang et al., 2022). For bloodstream infection, the evidence is too sparse to call either way.
Part 2: A Documented Site Check Each Shift and a Daily Necessity Question
Evidence: the Visual Infusion Phlebitis scale was developed to guide when to remove a catheter (Gallant & Schultz, 2006), and the composite cohort in the evidence table supports dwell beyond 96 hours when sites are monitored. Rating: good and consistent. This part is what makes Part 1 safe: removing the clock only works if someone looks at the site every shift.
Part 3: Keep the 48-Hour Limit for Emergency Insertions
Evidence: the CDC guideline recommends replacing catheters inserted under emergency conditions, when asepsis cannot be assured, as soon as possible and within 48 hours (O'Grady et al., 2011). Rating: good and consistent, drawn from a national guideline.
Expertise and Preference
Clinical expertise. Nurses on the unit already score sites each shift, so the change removes a task, scheduled resiting, rather than adding one. The unit's vascular access nurses reported that difficult restarts cluster among patients with long stays, older patients and those receiving irritant infusions, the same patients for whom each avoided insertion matters most. Charge nurses noted that scheduled resites often fall at shift change, when they compete with report and medication passes.
Patient preference. The phenomenological study appraised in Unit 6 showed that patients experience the removal of a working catheter as harm, and that trust falls with each failed attempt. A change that spares them needles answers something they said directly, not only something the trials measured.
Risks and Monitoring
A site check missed on a busy shift could let phlebitis progress unnoticed. The electronic record will therefore prompt the check each shift, and monthly audits will track documented checks, phlebitis per 1,000 catheter days and bloodstream infections. If phlebitis rises above the unit's baseline for two consecutive months, the change will be reviewed by the practice council before it continues.
Scope
The recommendation does not cover central venous catheters, midline catheters or children, which carry different risks and separate guidance. It also does not change how catheters are inserted, dressed or flushed, which remain under existing unit policy.
References
Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2022). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
Gallant, P., & Schultz, A. A. (2006). Evaluation of a visual infusion phlebitis scale for determining appropriate discontinuation of peripheral intravenous catheters. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 29(6), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129804-200611000-00004
Gorski, L. A., Hadaway, L., Hagle, M. E., Broadhurst, D., Clare, S., Kleidon, T., Meyer, B. M., Nickel, B., Rowley, S., Sharpe, E., & Alexander, M. (2021). Infusion therapy standards of practice, 8th edition. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 44(1S), S1-S224. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000396
O'Grady, N. P., Alexander, M., Burns, L. A., Dellinger, E. P., Garland, J., Heard, S. O., Lipsett, P. A., Masur, H., Mermel, L. A., Pearson, M. L., Raad, I. I., Randolph, A. G., Rupp, M. E., & Saint, S. (2011). Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 52(9), e162-e193. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir257
Rickard, C. M., Webster, J., Wallis, M. C., Marsh, N., McGrail, M. R., French, V., Foster, L., Gallagher, P., Gowardman, J. R., Zhang, L., McClymont, A., & Whitby, M. (2012). Routine versus clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: A randomised controlled equivalence trial. The Lancet, 380(9847), 1066-1074. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61082-4
Webster, J., Osborne, S., Rickard, C. M., & Marsh, N. (2019). Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019(1), CD007798. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007798.pub5
How this NU325 Unit 8 example is structured
Evidence, clinical expertise and patient preference are the three strands the recommendation weaves together. Each part of the change is stated as an action a nurse could carry out, then supported, then rated. Ratings borrow the Johns Hopkins synthesis language, from strong and compelling through good and consistent to good but conflicting, and each gives its reason in terms of level, quality and consistency. Expertise enters through the unit's own experience: nurses already score sites, so the change removes a task rather than adding one. Preference enters through the interview study, which showed patients experience scheduled removal of a working line as harm. Risks are faced directly: a site check missed on a busy shift could let phlebitis progress, which is why monitoring comes built in. The scope paragraph excludes central lines, midlines and children.
Get an NU325 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Recommendations rest on whatever the earlier units produced, so those pieces matter more than the prompt. Include the Unit 8 instructions and rubric, the evidence table or synthesis already written, and the evidence-based practice model the course uses. The sample states the change as actions, rates each part and names where it stops. The first one is free; allow 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
NU325 Unit 8 questions, answered
How strong does evidence need to be to recommend a practice change?
It depends on the model your course uses, but most tie the strength of a recommendation to the level, quality and consistency of the evidence together. Strong, consistent evidence can support a change; good but limited evidence may support a pilot; conflicting evidence usually supports further study. Say which category applies and why, instead of calling the evidence strong in general.
Where does patient preference fit in an evidence-based recommendation?
Most definitions of evidence-based practice combine the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values and preferences. Qualitative studies, patient surveys and local feedback all inform that third strand. A recommendation that ignores what patients experience can be technically correct and still fail in practice, so rubrics often look for it explicitly.
Can a staff nurse recommend a policy change?
Yes, and many practice changes start that way. The recommendation usually goes to a unit practice council, a shared governance committee or a nurse manager, who decide whether to pilot it. Say in your paper which group would review it and what they would need to see. That shows you understand the change process without overstating your own authority.