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.
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 integrated in my nursing practice. Medicine Publishing Company,33 3 , i-iii. Retrieved July 5, , from http: Journal of Hospital Infection. Reviewing and evaluating the literature. The research process in nursing 4th ed. Writing an integrative review.
Association ofpreoperative Registered Nurses Journal. Understanding nursing research 3rd ed. M A Healthcare Limited. Journal of Hospital Infections 47 suppl: Retrieved July 12, ,fromhttp: Clinical Governance in action: Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace. Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, the results and how relevant and applicable they are.
Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article. Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed.
It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:. At other times the barrier is harder, or even impossible to cross.
Communication difficulties arise even when a translator is available, and non-verbal messages may be missed by the patient or even by the health professional. Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that the average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text.
Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results but as mentioned previously may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias. This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material, but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted.
Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way. These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size.
There may also be recommendations for further research. These should be relevant to the study, be up to date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text. Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace.
Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature. Sarah Vogel specialises in producing well researched articles in the field of health and medicine.
Checklist for reading and critiquing a research article. 1. Critiquing the research article a. Title describes the article b. Abstract summarizes the article c. Introduction makes the purpose clear d. Problem is properly introduced e. Purpose of the study is explained f. Research question(s) are clearly presented g.
ILTM, Head of the Institute of Nursing and Midwifery, School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University BA, MPhil, RN, RGN, RNT, CertED, Senior Lecturer in Nursing, School of Health and Social Sciences, Middlesex University BA, MSc, PGDip, RN, DN, CertED (FE), Senior Lecturer in Health Studies, School of Health and Social .
Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research Michaei Coughian, Patricia Cronin, Frances Ryan or many qualified nurses and nursing students research is research, and it is often quite difficult critiquing research in an attempt to help nurses demystify. Critiquing a Research Article: Quantitative Study A critique is a careful appraisal of a study strength and weakness (Polit and Beck, , p). The Article “Improving maternal health and safety through adherence to postpartum hemorrhage protocol in Latin America” published in International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics in by.
Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by. This presentation is a critique of a research article written by Patricia Newcomb and Paula Webb () entitled: Relationship of nurse job satisfaction to implementation of a nursing professional practice model.