However it is wondered if other researches believed case 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.
This suggests the researches appear to have only reported the finding of other studies and not examined the material, which, Peat states is essential for making decisions about whether or not to change practice on the basis of published report. Following duplication of the researches literature search using their keywords 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 capable of testing and if the hypothesis is unambiguous. There is no hypothesis in the paper only a research question. Cormack states that hypothesis can only be stated for studies which predict a relationship between two variables. Since the authors do not state an expectation of the outcome they did not need to incorporate a hypothesis. This could suggest an understanding of research giving the reader faith in their capabilities.
Operational definitionsThe framework suggests the terms used in the research problem should be clearly defined. Nevertheless they are very limited 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.
The reader searched Blackwell Synergy using own keywords such as hospital equipment, contamination and bacteria. Many more articles were discovered indicating the authors did not perform an adequate literature search. MethodologyThe framework indicates that the methodology should clearly state the research 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 quantity of results as opposed to interpretation Munhall, Additionally the reader believed it is a deductive study since the authors looked at cross infection and objects in the hospital setting and narrowed it down to cross infection and case notes.
No strengths or weaknesses were acknowledged, which, Byrne states is needed so the reader can ascertain if the research is valid. Furthermore the authors state they sampled the spine of the case notes because this is where most hand contact occurs while reading them, however perhaps it could have been suggested sampling the inside since in, my experience, this is where most hand contact occurs.
However the Department of health state before and after patient contact hands should be washed, consequently the validity of their approach is questionable. Finally 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.
In this paper there are no subjects only case notes. Sample selectionThe framework suggests the selection approach is congruent to the methodology, clearly stated and if sample size is clearly stated.
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 collectionThe framework asks if the data collection procedures are adequately described. The authors describe the data collection procedure as recorded 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 contamination to the notes.
Ethical considerationsThe framework asks if the study involves humans has the study received ethics committee approval, if informed consent was sought, if confidentiality was assured and anonymity guaranteed.
Cormack, Royal college of physicians, 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.
However the table appears complex, confusing and impossible 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 do not state how they analysed the statistics so the reader can not judge any limitations.
DiscussionThe framework states the discussion 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. ConclusionThe 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 Health states Clinical governance is the system through which National Health Service organisations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care. Elcoat adds evidence-based practice and evidence-based nursing have very strong positions in the Clinical Governance agenda of quality improvement.
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 taking 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 clinical area. The qualitative research title identifies the key phenomenon and the group they are studying.
For this study, they wanted to document the experience of patients who have had an awake craniotomy. The title explains this well. The quantitative study has a title that identifies the key variables, however, the title does not mention a specific population for the study.
The conceptual and operational definitions of the quantitative research article are congruent because the researchers clarify their concept and explain how they will be measures as well as the operations performed to measure the concept.
The abstract of this article clearly summarizes the problem, methods, results, and conclusions. The qualitative study has an abstract that clearly and concisely summarizes the main features of the article. Both abstracts mention the problem that lead to their study, the purpose of their study, some background information, information surrounding the study, and a thesis statement.
Both the qualitative and the quantitative studies have a purpose statement that is clearly and concisely stated. A quantitative study will have a purpose statement that identifies the study variables, possible relationship, and the population of interest for the study. The quantitative article establishes the purpose statement as determining the effect of a patient having their legs crossed while having their blood pressure measured.
The statement does not mention a population of interest. Since the statement uses the word determine in the purpose statement, it indicates this is an experimental type of study. A qualitative study will have a purpose statement that identifies the concept and the group, or setting being studied. The qualitative studied being critiqued for this paper states outright that the study is a phenomenological one, but that can also be indicated by the purpose statement because it contains the word experience.
Every study needs to have a problem statement for readers to understand what the problem is and why it was important to research. Problem statements for qualitative studies address the problem, as well as information needed to address the problem.
Qualitative studies are often done when a topic is poorly understood and researchers want to develop a better understanding. This problem has significance for nursing because it will help nurses better understand how this type of procedure affects a patient emotionally.
The problem statement identifies what is wrong with the current situation, what the reader needs to understand, and knowledge gaps relating to the problem. Quantitative studies usually focus on concepts that can be measured. This statement identifies the problem, identifies what the reader needs to understand, how big the problem of inaccurate blood pressure measurement is, the consequence of inaccurate measurements, what is lacking, and what the study could contribute to a solution.
This problem has significance because accurate blood pressure measurement is crucial to the diagnosis of hypertension, as well as parameters for giving blood pressure medications. Some researchers only have research questions without a purpose statement. A hypothesis that is worded clearly and in present tense is an ideal hypothesis. Qualitative studies do not have hypotheses because there is not enough information to make a prediction, and because they want the participants to guide the inquiry.
There are no hypotheses or research questions in the quantitative study. The study states that they would like to determine if there is a relationship because prior research was inconsistent about keeping feet flat during blood pressure measurement, but there are no actual questions worded in the study.
The independent variable in this study is a participants legs being crossed at the knee. The dependent variable in this study is blood pressure readings. Researchers without a hypothesis are prepared to accept any results, but one can almost always explain superficial findings, no matter what they are. Literature Review The literature review for both studies is included at the beginning of each research paper. With a thorough literature review, researchers can determine how best to make a contribution to evidence already found.
This could include finding gaps in current research, or if performing a study again on a new population would be the next step.
The literature review for the qualitative study includes two sources. The sources were from and , while this article came out in The source is recent. The quantitative study uses mostly primary sources in the literature review.
This study was published in with the literature review sources ranging from
Research Critique of Qualitative Research on Registered Nurses. Print Reference this. Published: 23rd March, Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Research Critique of Quantitative Research on Nursing Practice. the nurse must undertake an evaluation and critical review of research studies, to see if the research is useful and of sufficient quality to be applied to their practice (Fink, ). This essay evaluates a quantitative research article which has relevance to nursing practice.
Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by a student in EDRS The student who submitted this paper last semester earned a on his critique. When critiquing a research paper, you are evaluating the research and the argument made by the author. To evaluate a research article, one will need to look at what the author is claiming, their research methods, and any problems there might be with the claims made. Are the references in the article reliable? What process [ ].
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 () is central to the research process. Free Essay: The purpose of this paper is to critique a qualitative research article in all phases of the report. For this purpose, the article that will be.