Through the evidence appraisals and synthesis process, I discovered that there really is not a lot of evidence to support our PICOT question despite what I thought. I assumed that duration of a Foley catheter was a major factor in increasing the incidence of CAUTI however we were not able to find an article that directly focused on duration as a factor. I don’t think I realized this until the synthesis of our paper because when I looked at the annotated bibliography I noticed that there was no direct support of our hypothesis. This finding will direct my future nursing practice when I use evidence based research for a topic, I will know that sometimes there is not a direct study but by looking at the results and the numbers in the study you can draw your own conclusion to your question based off of those results. Basically meaning that sometimes the answers are not right in front of your face, you may have to do some digging to figure it out. My team and I did agree that there is not a direct study that answers out PICOT question but when we dug a little deeper into the studies we were able to draw our own conclusions based on their research.

Our team I think did really well on the appraisal and synthesis process. We stayed open to each others ideas and were able to collaborate and work well together. After the appraisal piece we were told that our writing did not seem as though we worked on it together and rather split up the work and did it separately. Our work was not cohesive and didn’t flow together nicely. So in order to fix this problem we worked hard to go through each piece of the synthesis on zoom to make sure it was overall cohesive and flowed nicely.