# Situation: Staff nurses on an adult surgical ward want to know whether chewing gum after bowel surgery speeds the return of bowel function. They plan to search the literature and present the evidence to the ward's practice council. The council considers two proposals. Proposal 1: randomly assign consenting clients on two wards to one of two approaches, and publish the findings as new general knowledge. Proposal 2: adopt a gum-chewing protocol already supported by evidence on this ward, and monitor compliance each month. Which statement correctly classifies the two proposals?

> source: MyMerci (mymerci.kr)  
> url: https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629965  
> language: ko  
> subject: Nursing Practice III — Care of Clients with Problems in Surgery, Oxygenation, Fluid and Electrolytes, Infectious, Inflammatory and Immunologic Response, Cellular Aberrations

## 문제

Situation: Staff nurses on an adult surgical ward want to know whether chewing gum after bowel surgery speeds the return of bowel function. They plan to search the literature and present the evidence to the ward's practice council.

The council considers two proposals.
Proposal 1: randomly assign consenting clients on two wards to one of two approaches, and publish the findings as new general knowledge.
Proposal 2: adopt a gum-chewing protocol already supported by evidence on this ward, and monitor compliance each month.
Which statement correctly classifies the two proposals?

## 보기

1. Both are quality improvement, since both take place in the same hospital
2. Proposal 1 is research and Proposal 2 is quality improvement **✔ 정답**
3. Proposal 1 is quality improvement and Proposal 2 is research
4. Both are research needing ethics review, since both collect client data

**정답: 2**

## 해설

Research tests an unproven question with a systematic design, often randomization, to produce generalizable new knowledge, and it needs ethics review. Quality improvement puts existing evidence into local practice and monitors it with data to improve care on that unit. Evidence-based practice supplies what to change, and QI supplies how to implement and monitor it.

## 심화 해설

Classifying Research vs. Quality Improvement

The correct answer is Proposal 1 is research and Proposal 2 is quality improvement. These two activities are often confused because both collect data and both aim to improve patient outcomes, but they differ fundamentally in purpose, design, and generalizability.

Why Proposal 1 is Research

Proposal 1 randomly assigns consenting clients to one of two approaches and plans to publish the findings as new general knowledge. Random assignment is a deliberate, systematic method used to answer an unproven question and to minimize bias. The stated intent to produce generalizable new knowledge is the defining feature of research. This means the investigators are not simply trying to improve care on their own ward; they are trying to generate evidence that can be applied to other patients, other wards, or other hospitals. Because research involves human participants and aims to create generalizable knowledge, it requires ethics review before it begins.

The provided evidence supports the research nature of gum-chewing questions. The randomized controlled trials by Ln et al. [1], Gezer et al. [2], and Byrne et al. [3] all used randomization to test whether chewing gum speeds gastrointestinal recovery after abdominal or bowel surgery. These studies measured outcomes such as time to first flatus, time to first bowel motion, and length of stay. Their goal was not merely to improve one unit’s practice but to contribute evidence that could guide care elsewhere. A meta-analysis by Ciardulli et al. [4] further pooled randomized trials on cesarean delivery, demonstrating that research findings are intended to be synthesized and applied broadly.

Why Proposal 2 is Quality Improvement

Proposal 2 adopts a gum-chewing protocol already supported by evidence and monitors compliance each month. The key phrase is already supported by evidence. Quality improvement does not test whether an intervention works; it implements an intervention whose effectiveness has already been established through research. The goal is local: to improve care on this ward. Monitoring compliance is a process measure, not a research outcome. The data collected tell the team whether the protocol is being followed, not whether gum chewing itself is effective.

Distinguishing the Two Proposals

| Feature | Proposal 1 (Research) | Proposal 2 (Quality Improvement) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Primary purpose | Generate new, generalizable knowledge | Improve local care delivery |
| Question status | Unproven; being tested | Already answered by existing evidence |
| Design | Randomization, systematic protocol | Protocol adoption plus compliance monitoring |
| Data use | Test a hypothesis; publish findings | Monitor implementation; guide local adjustments |
| Ethics review | Required | Generally not required as research |

Watch out! The location of both proposals in the same hospital does not make them the same type of activity. A hospital can conduct both research and quality improvement simultaneously. Similarly, collecting client data does not automatically make an activity research. The deciding factor is the intent to produce generalizable knowledge versus the intent to apply known evidence locally.

Key point! Evidence-based practice identifies what should change based on research. Quality improvement then determines how to implement that change and monitor it in a specific setting. Research generates the evidence; QI uses it. In this scenario, the gum-chewing evidence already exists from RCTs and meta-analyses [1][2][3][4], so adopting the protocol is a QI action, while testing it with a new randomized design would be research.References (research sources)

- [1]Effect of Chewing Gum on Postoperative Gastrointestinal Recovery in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study.RCT/clinical trialLn AK, Saran S, Ranjan R. (2026) · DOI: 10.7759/cureus.106979

- [2]Effect of gum chewing on the return of bowel sounds, time to first flatus, and defecation after colorectal cancer surgery: A prospective, randomized controlled trial.RCT/clinical trialGezer D, Alptekin D, Yalav O, Eray İC. (2025) · DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2025.103039

- [3]Gum chewing aids bowel function return and analgesic requirements after bowel surgery: a randomized controlled trial.RCT/clinical trialByrne CM, Zahid A, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Young CJ (2018) · DOI: 10.1111/codi.13930

- [4]Chewing gum improves postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Meta-analysis/systematic reviewCiardulli A, Saccone G, Di Mascio D, Caissutti C, Berghella V (2018) · DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1330883

## 임상 시나리오

Research vs QI ClassificationDistinguishing purpose, design, and generalizability
Research tests an unproven question with a systematic design, often randomization, to produce generalizable new knowledge. It requires ethics review before data collection.

Quality improvement applies existing evidence to local practice and monitors it with data to improve care on that unit. Evidence-based practice identifies what to change; QI determines how to implement and monitor it.

CautionRandom assignment plus intent to publish as new general knowledge signals research, not QI, even if the project occurs within one hospital.

## 핵심 개념

- **Research** — Systematic investigation using methods such as randomization to answer an unproven question and produce generalizable new knowledge
- **Quality improvement** — Local implementation of existing evidence with data monitoring to improve care in a specific setting
- **Evidence-based practice** — Integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values to guide practice change
- **Ethics review** — Formal review required for research involving human participants to ensure protection and ethical conduct
- **Generalizability** — Extent to which research findings can be applied to populations or settings beyond the study sample

## 같은 주제 문제

- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629756)
- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629757)
- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629758)
- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629759)
- [Situation: A 78-year-old woman is admitted to the adult medical ward with community-acquir…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629760)
- [Situation: A 78-year-old woman is admitted to the adult medical ward with community-acquir…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629761)
- [Situation: A 78-year-old woman is admitted to the adult medical ward with community-acquir…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629762)
- [Situation: The quality committee of a 200-bed hospital notes that the adult medical ward's…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629763)

---

More free questions: [기출문제](https://mymerci.kr/)

_학습 참고용입니다. 실제 임상은 최신 지침과 소속 기관 프로토콜을 따르세요._