Addressed to a composite practice council, this NU325 Unit 9 evidence-based proposal asks to pilot IV removal on clinical signs and lines up every earlier unit behind the request. Searches like "nu 325 unit 9 assignment example", "nu325 unit 9 sample" and "nu325 unit 9 example" land here.
Proposal to the Unit Practice Council: A Twelve-Week Pilot of Clinically Indicated IV Removal
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU325: Evidence-Based Nursing
Unit 9 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Composite unit and council written as a model document. Budget figures are bracketed. Status: proposal awaiting approval; nothing has been piloted.
Executive Summary
The unit replaces every peripheral IV catheter at 96 hours regardless of site condition. A pair of randomized trials and a Cochrane review found that removing catheters only when clinically indicated produces no more phlebitis, with fewer insertions (Rickard et al., 2012; Webster et al., 2019), and current infusion standards support the change (Gorski et al., 2021). We request approval for a twelve-week pilot on the adult medical unit, with shift site checks, a 48-hour rule for emergency insertions and monthly monitoring. Status: this is a proposal awaiting approval; nothing has yet been tried on the unit.
Background and Significance
In four weeks, 61 catheters were removed on schedule; 47 had healthy sites and 19 of the replacements took two or more attempts. Each unneeded replacement costs the patient a needle and the unit nursing time.
PICOT Question
For adults on a medical unit who have a peripheral IV, does taking the catheter out only when its site or purpose calls for it keep phlebitis and bloodstream infection at the level seen with scheduled 96-hour changes, while cutting the number of insertions each patient goes through?
Evidence Summary
The evidence is good and consistent that phlebitis does not increase with clinically indicated removal; bloodstream infection is too rare in single trials to compare. Patients regard repeated insertions, and losing a line that still works, as real costs of their stay (Cooke et al., 2018). The full evidence table is in Appendix A.
Recommendation
End scheduled replacement; check every site each shift and remove on clinical signs or when no longer needed; replace emergency insertions within 48 hours.
Translation Plan
The Johns Hopkins model moves from a practice question through evidence to translation, and it asks whether a change fits, is feasible and is appropriate for the setting (Dang et al., 2022).
Fit: the unit's patients have average stays of five days, long enough for the change to matter, and nurses already score sites. Feasibility: no new equipment is needed; the change requires a policy edit, a record prompt and a short education session. Appropriateness: the change matches the evidence and the hospital's goals of reducing harm and supply costs.
Stakeholders and what each needs:
Infection prevention: the phlebitis data and the monitoring plan.
Vascular access team: fewer difficult restarts, and a clear rule for when to call them.
Staff nurses: a simple removal rule and a scoring refresher.
Nurse manager: the audit plan and the education time.
Action plan across twelve weeks:
Weeks 1 to 2: policy redline striking the 96-hour clause, approved by the council; record prompt changed to ask each shift for a site score and a need check.
Weeks 2 to 3: a 20-minute education session on site scoring and removal criteria, offered on all shifts.
Weeks 4 to 12: pilot running, with a weekly check-in at huddles.
Week 12: data review and a recommendation to the council.
Evaluation
Outcome measures: phlebitis per 1,000 catheter days; bloodstream infections. Process measure: percentage of shifts with a documented site check. Balancing measure: unplanned catheter failures, such as occlusion or dislodgement, which might rise if catheters stay longer.
Barriers and Responses
Habit: nurses used to the 96-hour rule may resite anyway; the record prompt and huddle reminders address this. Concern about infection: infection prevention will review monthly data. Busy shifts: the site check is already part of the assessment and takes under a minute.
Budget
Education time: [hours] of nursing time. Printing: [amount]. No equipment costs.
Conclusion
This proposal requests a twelve-week pilot, not a permanent change. Status: awaiting council approval; nothing has been implemented.
References
Cooke, M., Ullman, A. J., Ray-Barruel, G., Wallis, M., Corley, A., & Rickard, C. M. (2018). Not "just" an intravenous line: Consumer perspectives on peripheral intravenous cannulation (PIVC). An international cross-sectional survey of 25 countries. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0193436. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193436
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.
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
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 9 example is structured
The proposal is ordered for a council member who will read the summary and skim the rest, so every section opens with its conclusion. Earlier units are rewritten rather than pasted, and each is cut to what the decision needs. The translation plan carries the most new work. Fit asks whether the change suits the unit's patients and culture; feasibility, whether staff, time and supplies exist; appropriateness, whether it matches the evidence and the organization's priorities. Stakeholders are listed with what each would need: infection prevention wants the phlebitis data, the vascular access team wants fewer difficult restarts, nurses want a clear removal rule. Evaluation pairs outcomes, phlebitis per 1,000 catheter days and bloodstream infections, with a process measure, documented shift checks, and a balancing measure, unplanned catheter failures. Barriers get responses, and the status line returns in the conclusion.
Get an NU325 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Proposals vary by audience: some sections imagine a practice council, others a manager or a grant committee. Share the Unit 9 instructions and rubric, the earlier NU325 submissions with the instructor's comments on them, and the change model required. Everything gets rewritten into one request with its translation plan. First sample free, 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 9 questions, answered
What is the Johns Hopkins PET process?
The core of the Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice model for nurses: practice question, evidence and translation. The question phase frames the problem and builds a team, the evidence phase searches and appraises, and translation decides whether and how to change practice, including whether the change fits the setting, can be done and is appropriate. Many BSN courses use it to organize proposals.
Should an evidence-based proposal include a budget?
Often, even a rough one. Decision makers want to know what a change costs in staff time, education and supplies, and what it might save. Bracketed estimates with a stated basis are acceptable in coursework. If your instructions omit a budget, a short resources paragraph still helps, because feasibility without any mention of cost reads as incomplete.
How is the proposal different from the earlier assignments?
It combines them into one argument for a decision, with a plan for acting on it. Earlier pieces answered separate questions; the proposal has to read as a single document with a clear request. Expect to cut, update sources and revise wording, and to add implementation and evaluation sections that earlier units did not require.