Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research

Quantitative & Qualitative Research

Quantitative and qualitative research have been used by researchers for many years.  In research, these two types are used to draw conclusions to further evidence based practice. “Research methods are the techniques researchers use to structure a study and to gather and analyze information relevant to the research question” (Polit, & Beck, (2017), p. 11). What exactly is quantitative and qualitative research? Quantitative research is an approach for testing objective theories.  This is achieved by examining a relationship among different variables.  These variables can then be measured and number data can be analyzed through statistical procedures. Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. This is achieved by formulating questions and procedures.  The data is obtained in the participant’s setting and data is analyzed to particulars to general themes. The researcher then makes interpretations of the meaning of the data. Both types of research contain strengths and weaknesses. If the correct method is used and the researcher yields the results that were desired, it can help shape the health care profession in many ways. In this paper, the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of approaches will be discussed in regard to the topic of interest that was selected as well as discussing a valid response to claim that qualitative research is not real science. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Advantages

The first article selected involved reviewing central line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) rates and examining a hospitals pre- and post implementation of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) guidelines. Hospital-acquired infections, specifically CLABSIs were once thought to be an unavoidable risk. Therefore, the aim of this study was to prove that with the proper guidelines and preventative measures in place, CLABSIs and the deaths associated with them can be decreased. The main advantage of this study was the method of quantitative analysis lead the researchers in yielding statistically great results.

The second article selected involved interviewing health care staff on the believe that the empowerment of patients to be involved in their care would reduce the burden of health care-associated infections. The active engagement of patients in their care has also been used as a strategy to promote medication adherence, improve patient safety, and foster open communication with health care providers. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research. Therefore, “the study set out to examine the level of awareness toward patient empowerment, previous experiences with campaigns, and degree of acceptance toward the introduction of a new empowerment program focused on engaging patients around infection control strategies” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). The main advantage of this article was that it “heavily focused on understanding the human experience and used careful collection and analysis of subjects that are narrative and subjective” (Polit, & Beck, (2017), p. 12).

Disadvantages

A few disadvantages were noted within this quantitative study. The single-site retrospective design was of concern. Future studies with a larger more diverse sample size would be of benefit. With this disadvantage, the study limits it generalizability. In addition, randomized prospective studies looking closely at individual interventions may be of benefit. Lastly, the study also employed various methods of data collection. This in return may have impacted the validity and analysis within the study. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

A few disadvantages were also noted within the qualitative study. The main disadvantage to the qualitative study was the small sample size of hospital staff that were used. It is important in a research study to have a sufficient number of individuals involved because “generalizability of findings from constructivist inquiries is an issue for potential concern” and decreases validity (Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017) p. 12). In addition, the study did not include other health care staff from other departments within the hospital. The interviews were conducted with staff from the surgical unit. It would have been beneficial to see the opinions and answers from those throughout the hospital.

Response to claim

Qualitative research is not real science? Absurd it what I call the claim. Why do I call it absurd? Well, as nurses in the healthcare profession qualitative research is done each day with patient interaction by getting the patients point of view on their care and disease process. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.  “Much of the work of clinicians (including pharmacists) takes place within a social, clinical, or interpersonal context where statistical procedures and numeric data may be insufficient to capture how patients and health care professionals feel about patients’ care” (Austin, & Sutton, (2014).

Qualitative & quantitative are the two main types of research. Qualitative is more of a subjective method of data collection and deals with thoughts, feelings and beliefs, etc. Quantitative research gathers absolute data. It focuses on numeric information and is an objective method of data collection. Quantitative research is often carried out in a lab setting whereas qualitative research occurs in the natural setting. In this sense, it could be assumed that quantitative methods are more scientific because the experiments can be controlled, whereas qualitative is not very reliable due to the susceptible nature.  “It is important to note that although quantitative methods seem to be more scientific, the results are very rigid and do not give us any rich data. Qualitative methods, however, allow us to look further, beyond yes and no, beyond one to five, to give us information which is far more detailed. And through this, we can examine, explore and further theories” (Alhoward. (2011). Using both methods of research together can provide the best end result. Evidence based practices will be delivered in the health care setting.

Critique Template for a Quantitative Study

NURS 5052/NURS 6052

Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or

Mixed Methods Studies

Date: January 11, 2018

Your name: Jessica Toney

Article reference (in APA style):  Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016). One Rural Hospital’s Experience Implementing the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America Guidelines to Decrease Central Line Infections. Journal of Trauma Nursing. Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp. 290-297. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

URL: https://eds-a-ebscohostcom.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=

3fb92985-309b-4e9d-8252-0eb0e8e630c5%40sessionmgr4008

______________________________________________________________________________

 

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE

  1. Research Problem and Purpose

 

“Hospital-acquired infections, specifically CLABSIs, were once thought to be an unavoidable risk of intensive care. The high use of CVCs (3 million/year in the United States) (Edgeworth, 2009). has created a risk that resulted in a CLABSI rate of 80,000 in the ICU per year and this number climbs to 250,000/year with inclusion of patients outside of the ICU (Mermel.2000) and in 2008 alone, 37,000 CLABSIs occurred among patients receiving outpatient hemodialysis, which has resulted in a major public health problem (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011). The purpose of this article was to review the CLABSI rates and examination of the prevention strategies following implementation of the SHEA guidelines” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

 

  1. Hypotheses and Research Questions

 

“In an effort to take advantage of the Highmark Quality Blue Initiative, information from hospitals detailing their CLABSI surveillance system, quality improvement program, and statistics regarding the CLABSI events, this institution investigated the latest evidence-based recommendations to reduce CLABSIs. Will implementation of the Central Line Bundle and using SHEA guidelines decrease the rates of CLABSIs? (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

 

  1. Literature Review

 

“Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) affect 1.7 million patients annually and result in 99,000 deaths each year (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). There are major categories of HAIs; urinary tract infections that account for 34%, surgical site infections 17%, bloodstream infections 14%, and pneumonia 13%. CLABSIs are a subset of bloodstream infections, and while Klevens et al (2007) estimated that the deaths caused by or associated with an HAI were 98,987 per year, one-third of these were secondary to CLABSIs resulting in a 12.3% mortality rate (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). CLABSIs result in prolonged stays in the intensive care unit (ICU) with medical costs averaging an additional $11,971 per patient (Warren et al., 2006). The overall effect of CLABSIs results in annual expenditures of 2.3 million dollars in U.S. hospitals (Blot et al., 2005). However, with preventive measures, these costs could be greatly reduced and perhaps eliminated. Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) can be a devastating complication of intensive care in the hospital. Central venous catheters (CVCs) are venous access devices that end at or near the entry to the heart. While they are often necessary for hemodynamic monitoring and administration of fluids, medications, and total parenteral nutrition, they are not without considerable risk” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

 

The implementation of the SHEA guidelines and Central Line Bundle provided a conceptual framework for CLABSI which led to increased nursing knowledge of hub cleansing and physician dictation of line necessity, and a decrease in femoral line utilization.

  1. Population

 

“Any patient with a CLABSI infection admitted to this hospital July 2007 to June 2010 (N = 78). Inclusion criterion was a diagnosed CLABSI per the three levels of criterion set forth by the CDC (2010) as detailed in Table 1. The sample consisted of patients meeting inclusion criteria between July 2007 and June 2010. The sample was divided over three time periods. The sample ranged in age from 26 weeks to 91 years with 61% of the total being male” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

  1. Protection of Human Research Participants

 

This quantitative analysis does not address the protection of Human Rights

 

 

 

  1. Research Design

 

“Descriptive retrospective program evaluation examined the hospital’s pre- and post-SHEA implementation methods of decreasing CLABSIs and the subsequent CLABSI rates” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

 

  1. Instruments and Strategies for Measurement

Charts were used to collect data for measurement. The first chart consisted of “Criterion for Classification of a CLABSIs.” The second chart consisted of the characteristics of each patient in each period that included the number of CLABSIs, rate per 1,000 CVC days, mean patient age, gender, line type, and line location.

  1. Data Collection

“The CLABSI rates were obtained from CDC National Healthcare and Safety Network (CDC, 2010) database. CLABSI rate is calculated by multiplication of CLABSI episodes with 1,000 and then dividing by the total number of CLDs. (CDC, 2010). Data collection was made over three periods, that is, Period 1 (July 2007–June 2008), Period 2 (July 2008–June 2009), and Period 3 (July 2009–June 2010). CLABSI (defined as laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection in Table 2) event reporting was obtained from NHSN database (CDC, 2011) The outcome of decreasing CLABSI rates was examined and evaluated for compliance to quality improvement strategies. The IV therapy team performed daily inspections on central line management and line insertion compliance. The team located central line insertion departments (interventional radiology, emergency department, and ICU/ critical care unit [CCU]) and identified the certified insertion performers. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research. The LSS team gathered data using the “Get Off Your Armchair” (GOYA) method. The GOYA is a method of observation found in the LSS Pocket Tool book (2005) that calls for visiting the site, questioning staff, observing technique, and then documenting quality improvement strategies. Variations were corrected on the spot by providing education on an immediate basis” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

  1. Data Analysis

 

“Descriptive statistics, including demographic data (age, sex) and comparison of outcomes (femoral line utilization rates [FLURs], dictation of maximal barrier use, nursing care of the line, and necessity dictations), were calculated across the time periods using standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) and correlation techniques. The monthly CLABSI rates over the period of 3 years (July 2007–September 2010) divided into three time periods were evaluated. In addition, an in-depth review of each prevention strategy and compliance to the strategy was analyzed”

(Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

  1. Interpretation of Results

 

CLABSI rates showed a downward trend across the three time periods (1.9, 1.7, and 1.3, respectively). Interventions were introduced at each time period to correct deficiencies. Currently CLABSI rates at this facility remain lower than the baseline of 2.4 for calendar year 2013, 2014, and 2015. An ANOVA was calculated and no significant decrease in the FLUR was observed. The utilization rates and the femoral line days however, decreased. An ANOVA was applied to compare compliance to dictation of MBP between the three time periods. Results showed no change over time for MBP as well as for skin asepsis. Despite a nursing education in-service, baseline re- call was only 30% for nurses on the “Scrubbing the Hub” program. There was an increase in knowledge from this baseline in July 2009 to 86% in November 2009 following the educational intervention, but no significant increase in technique knowledge between November 2009 and May 2010. Chi-square test revealed no changes with 95%. There was a statistically significant increase in line necessity dictations from 55% to 82%. An ANOVA also revealed significant improvement to adherence in dictating line necessity for physicians” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Discussion of Findings

“The collaborative aspects of this program managed to decrease CLABSIs by compliance to the quality improvement strategies. Steady decline was observed in the periods with 1.3/1,000 CLDs at the end of fiscal year 2010. Each individual strategy was scrutinized for compliance and any additional shortcomings were identified and addressed. This retrospective study demonstrated a facilities ability to reduce CLABSI rates over time using the SHEA method. It reinforced the importance of ongoing education and evaluation of the consistent use of the SHEA methodology. Current CLABSI rates continue to stay below the baseline” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Limitations

 

“The single-site retrospective design of this study limits its generalizability. The study also employed various methods of data collection that may have impacted validity and analysis. Difference in data interpretation due to various sources/methods of observations is also a concern. There are two special approaches in the SHEA guidelines, CHG bathing of ICU patients and CHG sponge dressings for CVCs. These were executed at the end of Period 3 but not evaluated for this study” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

  1. Implications

 

Yes, the conclusions and implications drawn by the author warranted by the study

 

  1. Recommendations

 

“Future studies with a larger more diverse sample size would be of benefit. In addition, randomized prospective studies looking closely at individual interventions may be of benefit. Future evaluation of CLABSI rates at this facility should include these 2 items and their impact on the CLABSI rates” (Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016).

  1. Research Utilization in Your Practice

 

I believe that the implementation of such guidelines as those found within SHEA and Central Line Bundle will educate nurses and other staff on how to care and prevent the incidences of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections. There was enough analysis and statistical research complete in order to provide sufficient findings. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  

Critique Template for a Qualitative Study

NURS 5052/NURS 6052

Week 6 Assignment: Application: Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or

Mixed Methods Studies

Date: January 11, 2018

Your name: Jessica Toney

Article reference (in APA style): Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Empowering patients in the hospital as a new approach to reducing the burden of health care-associated infection: The attitudes of hospital health care workers. American Journal of Infection Control. Vol. 44, Issue 3, pp. 263-268. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

 

URL: https://www-sciencedirectcom.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/science/article/pii/

S0196655315010 378?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&

md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&ccp=y

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE

 

  1. Research Issue and Purpose

 

“Patient engagement programs have largely focused on involving the public in various aspects of organizational planning and governance, research, or empowering individuals or groups of individuals in the self-management of chronic conditions. Any approach promoting a culture of safety and the prevention of health care–associated infections (HCAIs) should involve all stakeholders, including by definition the patients themselves. This qualitative study explored the knowledge and attitudes of health care workers toward the concept of patient empowerment focused on improving infection control practices. This study set out to examine the level of awareness toward patient empowerment, previous experiences with campaigns, and degree of acceptance toward the introduction of a new empowerment program focused on engaging patients around infection control strategies” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Researcher Pre-understandings

 

The researchers were all professors at Health Universities in Australia who hold PhD degrees. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the South-Eastern Sydney Local Health Distract-Northern Sector. “We thank all the participants who gave their time to take part in the interviews. We also thank Professor Raina MacIntyre, Professor Phillip Crowe, and Professor Julian Gold for their input into the design” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Literature Review

 

“Patient engagement programs have largely focused on involving the public in various aspects of organizational planning and governance, research, or empowering individuals or groups of individuals in the self-management of chronic conditions. The active engagement of patients in their care has also been used as a strategy to promote medication adherence, improve patient safety after surgery, and foster open communication with health care providers.7 Since 2009, the World Health Organization has advocated for patient empowerment in health care and has specifically emphasized the role of patients in urging health care workers (HCWs) to comply with hand hygiene (HH) standards. To date, most of the studies examining patient empowerment programs relating to infection control have focused on the knowledge, attitude, and practices of the patients. Relatively few studies have considered the experience of the HCWs themselves. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research. Despite universal recognition of the potential value of such an approach, patient engagement remains an underused method of preventing HCAI in Australia. To our knowledge, the knowledge and attitudes of Australian hospital HCWs toward the concept of patient empowerment has not been previously explored” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

 

  1. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

 

The conceptual framework that was used in the study was conventional content analysis.

  1. Participants

“Clinical staff members (nurses, doctors, and allied health staff) from the department of surgery were invited to participate. Of the participants, 18 were women, 12 were aged ≤34 years, and 20 were registered nurses. Participants covered a broad range of experiences working in health care, ranging from 1-39 years (median, 14 years). Most participants had been working in their current role for a median period of 4.6 years (minimum, 3 weeks; maximum, 32 years). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research. Researchers liaised with a senior staff member from the surgical ward to invite staff members to participate. In addition to clinical staff, a member of hospital management and 3 staff members responsible for implementing infection control strategies were interviewed. Participants were recruited into the study when full written consent had been received. A shopping voucher was given to all participants to compensate them for their time” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Protection of Human Research Participants

 

Participation in the study was voluntary and was performed by staff of a hospital and not by patients themselves.  

  1. Research Design

 

“A qualitative methodology was used for 3 reasons. First, qualitative research methods are used extensively where the research topic is exploratory, as in the case of this study. Second, such methods are considered both appropriate and valuable in the study of quality improvement processes in health care. Finally, the same methods (semi-structured interviews) has been used in published research on HCAIs. An iterative 2-round process of in-depth interviews was undertaken with hospital HCWs from a major public hospital in Sydney, Australia. The first round of interviews was conducted between June and July 2013, and the second round was conducted between February and September 2014” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Data Collection/Generation Methods

“Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 29 staff from a large hospital in Sydney, Australia. An interview guide was developed based on scoping information gathered from a consultation session held with senior surgical staff members at the hospital and on available literature. The guide was pretested with a small sample to ensure it was acceptable (ie, on topic), understandable, and unambiguous and that the open-ended questions would elicit a response from interviewees. Questions addressed the following topics: perceived patient information needs and role-responsibility; understanding of, and experience with, patient empowerment strategies; experience of being asked factual versus challenging questions related to the quality and safety of the patients’ health care; attitudes toward a proposed empowerment intervention; and perceived benefits and perceived barriers and facilitators of participating in such an intervention. Questions were asked in an open-ended manner to allow room for expansion. Paraphrasing and additional questions were added to seek clarification during the interviews. This was to ensure that the study included the widest possible representation of opinions and so that the interview guide could be used in flexible manner. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research. For participants with very little understanding of patient empowerment, a short definition was provided to them after the knowledge questions were asked. (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Credibility

“Member checking was conducted during the interviews to ensure rigor of research and to ensure that participants’ views were represented accurately. This process involved summarizing and feeding back participants’ views at the end of the interview to compare the investigator’s account with participants’ views. The use of member checking in this study was primarily to ensure the study’s descriptive validity. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research. Participant recruitment was continued until data saturation was reached (ie. additional interviews produced no new ideas or issues). Participants were also asked to complete a short survey that collected general demographic information” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Data Analysis

 

“All interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically. Transcripts for each taped interview were checked for internal consistency and corroborated with other interviews. The researchers used NVivo 10 (QSR International, Doncaster, VC, Australia) to code the data. After repeated and close reading of the individual interview transcripts, 3 researchers independently constructed a code list of major themes emerging from the data. These code lists were compared and cross-checked, and a final list was compiled. An agreed thematic framework was applied to another subsample of transcripts and further modified. Using this final framework, all the transcripts were analyzed and coded” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Findings

“A total of 29 interviews were undertaken with hospital staff members (12 in the first round and 17 in the second round). There was almost unanimous agreement among the participants that patients should be stakeholders or play a role in the prevention of HCAI. What varied was the degree of responsibility or engagement in which participants felt patients should be involved” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Discussion of Findings

“This study explored the opinions of health care workers toward the concept of patient empowerment and the role of the patient in promoting hand hygiene and preventing health care associated infections. Among the participants of this study, there was a strong tendency to relate the concept of empowerment, which was understood to be the process for improving patient safety, primarily to encourage patients to improve their own behaviors, such as improving their or their family’s compliance with personal hygiene or HH, and to the provision of educational material about infection control or HH. Very few participants associated patient empowerment with any on-going exchanges between HCWs and their patients. This view of empowerment reflects an emphasis in current guidelines, which focus on information provision rather than engagement. During the interviews, participants closely related patient empowerment to patient-centered care, a concept with which they were more familiar. This is not unexpected, because apart from the recent predominance of the latter, patient empowerment and patient centeredness are both based on the principles of shared responsibility and the building of partnerships of mutual trust and respect between the caregiver and patient. Structural issues, such as workloads and competing priorities, including the change and quality improvement initiatives, are difficult to manage without commitment, as noted by participants, from senior staff. Participants in this study were open to the idea of patient empowerment because they felt that such a process could improve patient outcomes and communication between patients and their health care providers. Given that staff members are very accepting of the concept of patient-centered care, emphasis should be placed on how patient empowerment builds on from that now well-established approach. The success of patient empowerment fundamentally depends on how well the caregiver and patient can communicate with each other. Health care providers need to promote and enhance the patient’s ability to feel in control. Most of the study participants felt that improved communication would be one of the positive outcomes of an empowerment program; however, many did not link the promotion of participation and buy-in from patients with their own communication skills” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Limitations

 Some limitation noted within this study were “interviews were only undertaken with a select group of participants from one hospital; therefore, the possibility of other important themes emerging cannot be ruled out and this was a small, qualitative study” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research

  1. Implications

 “Most health organizations have recognized the potential of patient empowerment as a way of improving the HH behaviors of HCWs. Before facilities consider introducing a program such as this, they need to consider the following: (1) whether they have the infrastructure to support the program; (2) the mechanism they are going to use to educate and promote engagement and communication; (3) how they are going to align the culture at the facility toward the approach; and (4) how to evaluate the impact of the program. Although the role of the patient in HH as a means to prevent infection has been recommended by others, patient engagement remains an underused method of preventing HCAIs. By extending the concept of patient empowerment to other infection prevention opportunities, the positive impacts of this intervention will not only extend to the patient but to the system itself” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

  1. Recommendations

 

“The findings should be explored further in larger studies to establish whether the issues raised in this study are generalizable to the wider Australian health care community. Issues regarding variation in response between different categories and levels of seniority of staff members need to be explored in a larger quantitative study” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research.

  1. Research Utilization in Your Practice

 

Investing in staff development related to patient and family engagement helps staff partner meaningfully with patients and families not only in direct patient care but also in quality and safety initiatives, educational endeavors, evaluation, and research.” This can be concept can my implemented into any practice. “By extending the concept of patient empowerment to a range of infection prevention opportunities, the positive impact of this intervention will not only extend to the patient but to the system itself” (Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015). Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research

References

Alhoward. (2015). “Qualitative research isn’t as scientific as quantitative research methods.”

Received from https://alhoward.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/qualitative-research-

isn’t-as-scientific-as-quantitative-methods/

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for

nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer. Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed

Methods Approaches. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE, (2018). Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KGNADwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=quantitative+and+qualitative+research&ots=XCEed93gcZ&sig=lSs52Q22qXZ-foMRU1ete9JjWQU#v=onepage&q=quantitative%20and%20qualitative%20research&f=false

Curlej, M. H., Katrancha, E. (2016). One Rural Hospital’s Experience Implementing the Society

of Healthcare Epidemiology of America Guidelines to Decrease Central Line Infections. Journal of Trauma Nursing. Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp. 290-297. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=3fb92985-309b-4e9d-8252-0eb0e8e630c5%40sessionmgr4008

Seale, H., Chughtai, A. A., Kaur, R., Phillipson, L., Novytska, Y., & Travaglia, J. (2015).

Empowering patients in the hospital as a new approach to reducing the burden of health care-associated infection: The attitudes of hospital health care workers. American Journal of Infection Control. Vol. 44, Issue 3, pp. 263-268. Retrieved from https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/science/article/pii/S0196655315010 378?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&ccp=y Nursing 6052 – Week 7 – Critiquing Quantitative/ Qualitative Research

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.