Three Proposals About Debriefing After Cardiac Arrest: Sorting Research, Evidence-Based Practice and Quality Improvement at the Graduate Level
Student Name
American College of Education
NUR5023: Advanced Nursing Research and Practice I
Module 1 Assignment
Instructor Name
May 3, 2027
The Three Proposals
In-hospital cardiac arrest is common, frightening and often followed by silence. At the 320-bed community hospital described in this paper, a composite invented for the assignment, resuscitation teams disperse after a code, and the only structured review happens weeks later if the case reaches the quality committee. Research on debriefing suggests this is a missed opportunity. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that debriefing after life-threatening emergencies improved clinicians' technical performance and, in pooled cardiac arrest studies, improved chest compression fraction and return of spontaneous circulation, though it showed no effect on survival to hospital discharge (Couper et al., 2013).
At its spring meeting, the hospital's resuscitation committee received three proposals from three nurses. The first, from an intensive care clinical nurse specialist, proposed comparing survival and neurologic outcomes after arrests on units that adopt a structured debriefing with outcomes on units that do not, and publishing the results. The second, from a medical-surgical nurse manager, proposed reviewing the published evidence on debriefing and, if it supported the practice, writing a hospital policy and a debriefing tool. The third, from the rapid response team coordinator, proposed trying a five-minute debriefing after every arrest on two units for three months and tracking whether it happened and whether compression data improved. All three proposals are about the same practice, and each is a different kind of work with different rules.
What Makes Each One Different
The first proposal is research. Its purpose is to generate new, generalizable knowledge about whether debriefing changes patient outcomes, a question the existing evidence has not settled. It requires a design that controls for differences between units and patients, a sample large enough to detect a change in survival, a plan for statistical analysis and review by an institutional review board, because it uses identifiable patient data to produce knowledge intended for others. It will take at least a year and likely longer, and its value lies beyond the hospital.
The second proposal is evidence-based practice. Its purpose is not to create new knowledge but to find, appraise and apply existing knowledge to a local decision: should this hospital adopt debriefing, and if so, how? The work consists of a structured question, a documented search, appraisal of the evidence, a recommendation and a plan for implementation. It usually does not need research ethics review, because it uses published evidence rather than patient data. Shirey et al. (2011) used case examples to show that evidence-based practice sits between research and quality improvement, drawing on research findings to change practice and often leading into quality improvement work to sustain the change.
The third proposal is quality improvement. Its purpose is to improve a process in this hospital quickly, using local data and small tests of change. It asks whether debriefing is happening, how staff respond and whether compression metrics improve on two units, and it adjusts the approach as it goes. Its findings are meant for the units involved, and it is overseen through the hospital's quality structure rather than a research ethics board, unless its leaders later decide to publish it as generalizable knowledge.
Where the Lines Blur
The categories overlap in practice, and the committee's discussion showed where. The quality improvement proposal would collect chest compression data that could, if pooled across units and time, answer a question similar to the research proposal's. If the rapid response coordinator later wanted to publish that data as evidence for other hospitals, the project's purpose would shift, and it would need to be reviewed as research, ideally before data collection rather than after. The evidence-based practice proposal would likely conclude that debriefing improves process measures but has uncertain effects on survival, which is exactly the gap the research proposal aims to fill.
The committee resolved the overlap by sequencing the work. The evidence-based practice review would come first, because the other two depend on knowing what is already established. If it supported debriefing, the quality improvement pilot would follow. The research proposal would be revised to build on the pilot, with ethics review from the start. The value of the distinctions is not in sorting projects into boxes but in knowing which rules apply before the work begins.
Ethical Obligations in Each Kind of Work
Each proposal carries ethical obligations, and they differ in form more than in seriousness. The research proposal involves identifiable outcome data for patients who could not consent at the time of their arrest, which makes review by an institutional review board essential, and the board would need to decide whether consent can be waived for a records-based comparison. The evidence-based practice proposal carries a quieter obligation: to appraise the evidence honestly and not to recommend a practice more strongly than the evidence supports, since a policy built on overstated evidence can spread an ineffective practice across a whole hospital.
The quality improvement pilot has obligations toward staff as well as patients. Debriefing after a death can be distressing, and a poorly facilitated session can leave team members feeling blamed for an outcome that was not in their control. The pilot would need trained facilitators, a clear statement that the debriefing is for learning rather than performance review and a way for staff to decline without consequence. Oversight differs across the three kinds of work, but in every one the people affected are entitled to have their interests protected before the work begins, not after.
What the Graduate Standard Adds
A nurse prepared at the baccalaureate level can take part in all three kinds of work, collecting data, applying a protocol or participating in a pilot. The graduate standard asks for more. The master's-level Essentials describe advanced-level competencies in scholarship for the nursing discipline that include evaluating and synthesizing evidence, leading its translation into practice and contributing to the generation of new knowledge (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2021). For the proposals above, that means a master's-prepared nurse should be able to lead the evidence review rather than contribute to it, design the quality improvement measures so they can detect a real change, and recognize when a project has crossed into research.
The graduate standard also asks for a different relationship with evidence. Polit and Beck (2021) emphasize that research consumers at an advanced level must judge not only what a study found but how much confidence its design allows. The meta-analysis cited above illustrates the point: a graduate nurse should notice that the improvement in return of spontaneous circulation came with no effect on survival to discharge, and that the pooled studies were few and varied, before recommending debriefing as a way to save lives rather than a way to improve resuscitation performance.
Conclusion
Three proposals about debriefing after cardiac arrest, submitted to one committee, illustrate three kinds of scholarly work. Research seeks new knowledge that applies beyond the setting and requires rigorous design and ethics review. Evidence-based practice applies existing knowledge to a local decision. Quality improvement tests and refines a process locally with rapid cycles. The lines between them blur, especially when local data might be published. The graduate standard is to know which kind of work a project is, lead it at the appropriate level of rigor and read evidence closely enough to claim no more than it supports.
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf
Couper, K., Salman, B., Soar, J., Finn, J., & Perkins, G. D. (2013). Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 39(9), 1513-1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2951-7
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Shirey, M. R., Hauck, S. L., Embree, J. L., Kinner, T. J., Schaar, G. L., Phillips, L. A., Ashby, S. R., Swenty, C. F., & McCool, I. A. (2011). Showcasing differences between quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 42(2), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20100701-01
How this NUR 5023 Module 1 example is structured
NUR 5023 Module 1 typically sets the graduate standard and the difference between research and quality improvement; your classroom's instructions decide whether the paper uses examples, a comparison table or a reflection. This example describes three real-type proposals on one topic, then compares them on purpose, method, knowledge produced and oversight, so the distinctions are shown rather than defined in the abstract. A separate section addresses what the graduate standard adds to each kind of work. Keeping the clinical topic fixed while the kind of inquiry changes is what makes the comparison clear.
NUR5023 Module 1 questions, answered
What does NUR5023 Module 1 usually ask for?
NUR5023 Module 1 typically introduces graduate-level scholarship and asks students to distinguish research, evidence-based practice and quality improvement. Many sections use examples from the student's own practice or a case. Your classroom's instructions decide the format, which may be a paper, a comparison table or a discussion.
What is the simplest way to tell research from quality improvement?
Ask about purpose. Research aims to produce knowledge that applies beyond the setting where it is done, usually for publication. Quality improvement aims to improve a process in one setting quickly, using local data. If a quality improvement project will later be published as generalizable knowledge, it may need research ethics review.
What does the graduate standard mean in this course?
At the master's level, nurses are expected to lead evidence appraisal and translation rather than only take part, to design measures that can detect real change and to judge how much confidence a study's design allows. The AACN Essentials describe these advanced-level expectations for scholarship.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.