Critiquing nursing research Essay

Through the nurse and Midwifery Council (NMC) code of superior take in (NMC, 2004) nurses supply high standards of c be to uncomplainings and clients. One code nurses adhere to is cla drop 6 which pronounces nurses must maintain professional knowledge and competence, dumbfound a responsibility to deliver care based on current evidence, beat practice and validated investigate (NMC, 2004). Validated re assay involves critiquing and acquiring the skills of synthesis and critical analysis, this changes nurses to distinguish the relationship between theory and practice in nursing (Hendry & Farley 1998).This assignment pull up stakes judge the inquiry paper Patients suit of clothes nones look but beginnert touch written by Bebbington, Parkin, James, Chichester and Kubiak (2003) (Appendix 1) victimisation Benton and Comacks (2000) mannikin (Appendix 2). This was selected because of the publicity that surrounds hospital acquired infection (Barrett, 2005).TitleThe mod eling suggests the deed should be concise, informative, understandablyly specify the essence and indicate the look greet. The title of the paper is concise however it gives no culture of content or search call down. Moreover the research approach is unidentified consequently the contributor is unsure what kind of research has been performed, perhaps an alternate title could get under ones skin been Case notes, do they pass infection A valued contain. This whitethorn indicate that the authors gain not used a standard format which Benton (2000) landed estates reports should follow nevertheless the title captured the imagination of the ref and warrants advertize reading.AuthorsAccording to the fashion model, the author(s) should possess suppress academic and professional qualifications and experience this jibe to Carter & Porter (2000) establishes integrity. The qualifications and experiences of the authors are not documented. This could indicate the authors have n o pertinent qualifications or experiences in this field. but further reading identifies where the authors work which could be relevant to their subject, although there is no indication of their occupation. still the commentator performed an online search and nominate the authors have had previous papers print suggesting research experience,which gives say-so in their abilities.AbstractThe manakin states an twitch should be included, should identify the research problem, state the hypotheses, outline the methodological analysis, give details of the archetype subjects and report major findings. The abstract is included and is outlined which makes it distinctive and captures the attention. Burns and Grove (2003) states this helps to influence the reader to read the remainder of the report. Additionally a distinctive abstract is unspoiled for a rapid summary (Parahoo, 1997). The search motion is included and is observe immediately on the first line. Also incorporated are th e methodology, sample subjects and major findings. Yet they do not state the hypothesis. The abstract is clear and precise which gives the reader whim in the capability of the researches.IntroductionThe exemplar indicates the cornerstone should clear identify the problem, include a rationale and state whatever limitations. The problem is identifiable and the rational is included, nevertheless the reader would have like to see these presented earlier in the introduction. Dempsey & Dempsey (2000) hold in and states the research problem should be identified early and Polit & Beck (2004) add that readers profit from learning the problem immediately. The authors did not indicate any limitations which could suggest inexperience or could question their professional responsibility (Polit & Beck, 2004), however the reader perceives a limitation as organism entirely one study of hospital inpatients notes have been reported thus only one study to compare findings.Literature retrospec tThe, framework indicates the literary works review should be current, identify the primal theoretical framework, stupefy a balanced rating of material and to look for absent course credits. The authors literary productions reviews produce cardinal references which range from 1967 to 2002, four were classed as outdated (Burns & Grove, 2003) and nine were classed current. Although the reference from 1967 is outdated it is reasonable the authors included it since it is the only research paper found on their particular subject. However this causes the reader to speculate the reason this subject was studied. Because the authors and the reader did notdiscover any another(prenominal) writings pertain with the subject this, could indicate that the authors literature search was comprehensive which could prove hardship of the study. However it is wondered if other researches believed show window notes were irrelevant compared to other objects in the hospital or if this is ground breaking research. Improvement could have been made by the authors including the search engines they had used as this would allow replication and evaluation of the paper.The literature the authors cited used a quantitative approach as did the authors themselves thus identifying and employing the underlying theoretical framework and giving credibility to the paper. Cutlcliff & Ward (2003) suggests the literature review guides the researcher in discussing the results of the study in terms of agreement or non agreement with other studies, however there is no evidence of evaluation of material that supports or challenges the position being proposed .This suggests the researches appear to have only reported the finding of other studies and not examined the material, which, Peat (2001) states is native for making decisions close to whether or not to change practice on the basis of published report.The outcome is a research paper without critical analysis which Beyea & Nicoll (1998) sta tes is rudimentary to the delivery of evidence based patient care. Following duplication of the researches literature search using their key lyric poem the reader could find no important references omitted which leads to the belief that they performed the search methodically. However it was discovered that one important reference in the text (Semmelweis) had been omitted in the reference list. This leads the reader to question if other things may also have been omitted resulting in an unsound paper.The hypothesisThe framework asks if the hypothesis is unfastened of testing and if the hypothesis is unambiguous. There is no hypothesis in the paper only a research question. Cormack (2000) states that hypothesis can only be state for studies which predict a relationship between two variables. Polic & Becks (2004) concur and believe hypotheses are predictions of expected outcomes. Since the authors do not state an forecast of the outcome they did not need to incorporate a hypothesis . This could suggest an reason of research giving the reader faith in their capabilities.Operational definitionsThe framework suggests the terms used in the research problem should be distinctly delineate. The terms that the authors employ are clearly defined and can be found effortlessly. Nevertheless they are very extra in respect of the paper and the reader speculated how they found eleven of the twelve references using the keywords since they related to other objects. This could indicate that they decided upon key words prior to performing the literature research, thus limiting their search (Tarling & Crofts, 2002) which questions the validity of the paper. The reader searched Blackwell Synergy using own keywords such as hospital equipment, befoulment and bacteria. Many to a greater extent articles were discovered indicating the authors did not perform an fair to middling literature search.MethodologyThe framework indicates that the methodology should clearly state the rese arch approach, appropriate to the research problem and if strengths and weaknesses are noted. Although the authors do not identify the study as quantitative the reader understands that it is since it uses findings that can be measured and deals with meter of results as opposed to interpretation (Munhall, 2001). Additionally the reader believed it is a deductive study since the authors looked at carrefour infection and objects in the hospital scope and narrowed it down to cross infection and episode notes. No strengths or weaknesses were acknowledged, which, Byrne (1998) states is needed so the reader can ascertain if the research is valid. what is more the authors state they sampled the spine of the human face notes because this is where most conk contact occurs patch reading them, however perhaps it could have been suggested ingest the inside since in, my experience, this is where most hand contact occurs. The researches also stated they did not wash their men until the la st set of notes had been tested because it simulates the typical daily handling of notes by HCWs. However the Department of health (2000) state in the beginning and after patient contact hands should be washed, consequently the validity of their approach is questionable. at last the reader would have liked the researches to explain why the notes were incubated at 37 degrees since an assumption could be made that they are simulating a hospital environment.SubjectsThe framework suggests the subjects should be clearly identified inthe title abstract and methodology. In this paper there are no subjects only case notes. However the reader would have liked there to be a rationale why the authors chose case notes as this according Polit & Beck (2004) gives the reader an sympathy of the strengths and weaknesses of the sampling plan.Sample selectionThe framework suggests the selection approach is congruent to the methodology, clearly stated and if sample size is clearly stated. It appears t hat convenience sampling was utilised though this is not clear Burns & Grove (2003) suggest this approach should be avoided however as it provides the opportunity for bias. Since the sample selection method is unclear, it may have been inappropriate, denoting further flaws which affect the remainder of the paper. The sample size is clearly stated however but should have been included in the methodology giving the reader a reference when reading it.Data paradeThe framework asks if the entropy collection procedures are adequately described. The authors describe the data collection procedure as record and analysed. This gives the reader no understanding of how the data was collected, who document it, who interpreted it and where it was stored. This could have implications on the results since there may have been weaknesses in these areas such as the reliability of the collection tools, if the people who recorded and analysis it had training and if there could there be any contaminati on to the notes.Ethical considerationsThe framework asks if the study involves humans has the study received moral philosophy committee approval, if informed consent was sought, if confidentiality was assured and anonymity guaranteed. Although the study does not directly involve human subjects research involving individual(prenominal) information relating to human subjects requires the approval of the local ethics committee. (Cormack, 2000)(Royal college of physicians, 1998) The authors make no reference these three ethical codes so it is unknown if the patients agreed to their case notes being tested. This implies no consideration of ethical issues from the authors and questions what other considerations they have overlooked.ResultsAccording to the framework the results should be clearly presented, internally consistent, have sufficient detail to enable the reader to judge, and asks how much confidence can be placed in the finding. The results that the authors present are unclear and misleading since the first two lines state 227/228 case notes contained bacteria however it continues to inform that most were environmental. The authors use a table to portray their results which Crooks & Davis (1998) suggests is all that is needed to convey information. However the table appears complex, confusing and insufferable to understand therefore the reader would question the internal consistency. In addition since the results are difficult to interpret the reader can not judge the reliability of the findings.Data analysisThe framework states the approach should be appropriate to the type of data collected, statistical analysis should be correctly performed, should be sufficient analysis to decide whether significant differences are not caused by differences in other relevant variables and if the complete information is reported. The authors approach was appropriate to the type of data collected since no other approach would be suitable. Nevertheless the researches d o not state how they analysed the statistics so the reader can not judge any limitations.DiscussionThe framework states the reciprocation should be balanced, drawn on previous research, weaknesses of the study acknowledged and clinical implications discussed. The discussion is not balanced since it focus upon the findings of pathogenic bacteria on case notes and subsequently formulates assumptions about MRSA surviving on case notes without research to back this up. It vaguely draws upon the only previous research and mentions the result, which contradicts their own findings. No failings or limitations of the study or literature review are recognized implying no review or evaluation of the literature, which, according to Benton & Cormack (2000) is central to the research process. One clinical implication is discussed briefly however the reader should have in mind that the authors have not proved the transmission of bacteria on case notes to HCWs hands only the potential.Conclusion The framework asks if the conclusions are supported by the results obtained. The conclusion the authors established was the possibility of transferring bacteria, however since the results are indecipherable it is impossible to determine if the conclusions are supported by the results.RecommendationThe framework states the recommendations should suggest further areas for research, and identify how any weaknesses in the study design could be avoided in future research. There is no suggestion for further research no weaknesses in the study design mentioned and no recommendations on how issues can be avoided. Therefore the reader believes this paper does not establish contamination from case notes, so is unreliable and lacks validity.Application to practiceThe Department of wellness (2005) states Clinical presidential term is the system through which National Health Service organisations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high stan dards of care. Elcoat (2000) adds evidence-based practice and evidence-based nursing have very strong positions in the Clinical Governance schedule of quality improvement. Evidence-based practice can be defined as using contemporaneous best evidence ensuring actions are clinically appropriate appeal effective and result in positive outcomes for patients (Trinder & Reynolds, 2000). Therefore either healthcare team member has to critique evidence, assess its reliability and application before combining it with their own clinical expertise (DePoy & Gitlin, 1998).Before knowing how to critique I did not understand why nurses had to review articles and I would have taken them on face value, however since critiquing this article I have realized it is a very important part of my practice and fetching articles on face value is unsafe practice. The authors discussed some important issues concerning cross infection and as a consequence I have reflected more on cross infection in my clini cal area. This leads me to believe that every research paper is of value and has something to give to the reader. However the article will have little impact on my practice since the recommendation of hand washing before and after patient contact is already incorporate in my nursing practice.ReferencesBarrett , S. P. (2005). Whats new in infection affirm? Medicine Publishing Company,33(3), i-iii. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http//www.atyponlink.com/MPC/doi/abs/10.1383/medc.2005.33.3.iBebbington, A., Parkin, P.A., Chichester, L. J., & Kubiak, E. M. (2003). Patientscase notes look but dont touch. Journal of Hospital Infection. 55, (4).Benton, D., & Cormack, D. (2000). Reviewing and evaluating the literature. In D.Cormack (Ed.). The research process in nursing (4th ed.). Oxford, UKBlackwell Science.Beyea. S, Nicoll, L. (1998). Writing an integrative review. Association ofpreoperative Registered Nurses Journal. 67, 4, 877-880.Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2003). Understanding nursing resea rch (3rd ed.). PhiladelphiaSaundersByrne, D. W. (1998). Publishing medical research. Philadelphia Lippincott Williams &Wilkins.Carter, D. & Porter, S. (2000). Validity and reliability. In D. Cormack (Ed.), Theresearch process in nursing (4th ed.). Oxford, UK Blackwell Science.Cormack , D. (Ed.). (2000). The research process in nursing (4th ed.). Oxford BlackwellPublishing.Crookes, P. A., & Davies, S. (Eds.). (2004). Research into practice essential skills forreading and applying research in nursing and health care. Edinburgh BaillireTindall.Cutcliffe, J. R., & Ward, M. (Eds.). (2003). Critiquing nursing research. Wiltshire M A Healthcare Limited.Dempsey, P., & Dempsey, A. (2000). Understanding nursing research process,critical appraisal & engagement (5th ed.). Philadelphia Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Department of health. (2001). The Epic project developing national evidence-basedguidelines for preventing healthcare associated infections, sort 1 guidelines forpreventing hospital -acquired infections .Journal of Hospital Infections 47 (suppl) S1-82Department of Health. (2005). Clinical Governance. Retrieved July 12, 2006,fromhttp//www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/ClinicalGovernance/fs/enDePoy, E., & Gitlin, L. N. (1998). Introduction to research understanding and applying multiple strategies. Philadelphia MosbyElcoat, D. (2000). Clinical Governance in action key issues in clinical effectiveness.Professional Nurse.18 (10).Hendry, C., & Farley, A. (1998). Reviewing the literature a guide for students. treat Standard. 12(44).Munhall, P. L. (2001). nursing research a qualitative perspective (3rd ed.). Boston Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Nursing & Midwifery council. (2004). Code of professional conduct. London Nursing & Midwifery council.Peat, J. (2001). Health science research a handbook of quantitative methods. London Sage.Parahoo, K. (1997). Nursing research principles, process and issues. Basingstoke Macmillan.Trinder, L., & Reynold s, S. (2000). Evidence-based Practice. A Critical Appraisal.