I put 4 comment here because in this class the teacher ask for (4 comments only) no 6 as in the previous class. You can write 75 words in each and if you know about the theme or comment and you have substantive answer like your own comment you can write without references. Thanks.
Six articles that I have chosen to summarize for my research include the following:
Strengths related to using these articles for research are that they all portray relevant information regarding the retention of newly hired nurses and data related to staff retention. The information received from participants would be confidential, so views could be given free from judgement or fear of retaliation.
Weakness may be related to the amount of information specific to night shift retention. A Potential weakness may be finding willing participants to collect enough data to form a conclusion.
Chen, Y. Y., Chi, M. M., Chen, Y. C., Chan, Y. J., Chou, S. S., & Wang, F. D. (2013). Using a criteria-based reminder to reduce the use of indwelling urinary catheters and decrease urinary tract infections. American Journal of Critical Care, 22(2), 105-114.
The article intends to reveal criteria based reminders are useful in the diagnosis and cure of urinary tract infections.
Strength: This article is only focused on urinary catheters and discusses every minute detail
Weakness: It does not mention other vital methods for prevention
Clarke, K., Tong, D., Pan, Y., Easley, K. A., Norrick, B., Ko, C. … & Stein, J. (2013). Reduction in catheter-associated urinary tract infections by bundling interventions. International journal for quality in health care, 25(1), 43-49. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzs077
The author here proposed interventions to prevent urinary tract infections.
Strength: the author has not lengthened the article despite proposing several things
Weakness: Without any substantial comparison, an author has regarded one intervention as best of all others
Gould, C. V., Umscheid, C. A., Agarwal, R. K., Kuntz, G., & Pegues, D. A. (2010). Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 31(04), 319-326.
This article is based on the prevention types for catheter-associated urinary tract infections
Strength: It describes all reasons which may lead to the development of infection
Weakness: it does not figure out ways in which this infection may get severe
Hebden, J. N. (2014). Nurse-directed catheter removal protocols to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection: Strategies for implementation. American journal of infection control, 42(6), 670
The article provides deep insights into how individuals can benefit from nurse-directed catheter removal protocol
Strength: It helps gain insights into types of urinary tract infections that patient can encounter
Weakness: it does not declare a suggested method to be an effective one
Magers, T. L. (2013): Using evidence-based practice to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 113(6), 34-42.
The author has mentioned real life and practices to reduce catheter-associated urinary tract infections
Strength: The author motivates its prevention
Weakness: substantially, no prevention methodologies are mentioned
Parry, M. F., Grant, B., & Sestovic, M. (2013). Successful reduction in catheter-associated urinary tract infections: focus on nurse-directed catheter removal. American journal of infection control, 41(12), 1178-1181.
In this article, Author has discussed and tried to measure the role of a nurse in catheter removal
Strength: the charts and diagrams presented are viable for understanding pain units
Weakness: It has less practical implication due to the non-addition of any possible solution
Comment 3 3DQ2
Two methods for evaluating evidence would be Randomized Controlled Trials and Observation research. The Observational research such as surveys and qualitative studies can be a platform for informing practice. This type or research measures but does not control the variables. Randomized studies between control groups is random (Reinhardt, 2010). This design is the random assignment of study participants to either a group that receives the treatment being studied (the “treatment group”) or a group that does not receive the treatment (the “control group”).
We may also need to determine whether the article supplies Qualitative vs Quantitative information. Depending on what type of data is required to defend the hypothesis.
Quantitative – Quantitative research is measurable and uses data and statistics to form basis for hypothesis (Grove, Gray, and Burns, 2015).
Qualitative- “Qualitative research is a systematic approach used to describe experiences and situations from the perspective of the person in the situation. The researcher analyzes the words of the participant, finds meaning in the words, and provides a description of the experience that promotes deeper understanding of the experience” (Grove, Gray, and Burns, 2015). This type of research is based on perception and emotions.
For the evaluation of evidence, the use of quantitative and qualitative methods is the ones on which a medical practitioner can rely. In qualitative methods, use of literature is made along with previous studies to provide viable arguments. Comparatively quantitative methods are wise enough to generate data and compare statistics and then coin any particular verdict to the evidence. One cannot say that one is superior over others as both come with pros and cons. Qualitative methods often make use of interviews and often believes in professional advice for generating the result. They do not go into any in-depth study to find out if opinions are valid or error-free. Quantitative method is known for conducting data and experiments and processing the data while correlating them to reach a possible solution (Creswell, 2007). Hence regarding medical aspects, quantitative data is more appropriate to rely on than qualitative analysis. Qualitative methods, however, is essential for increasing knowledge about any aspect. Though for proper evaluation and for proving a point, the need of quantitative analysis has reached to a higher point, without numerical data, it is not wise to make health care related decisions as it directly affects a life.
Evaluating different evidence methods: There are several methods of evaluating evidence methods are present, but the two most common methods of evaluating evidence are Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews. These two methods can help in the determination of the relevance and validity of the evidence. During the evaluating evidence both these systematic reviews and meta-analyses methods as well as similar and different.
Both the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses are considered the highest quality of evidence for clinical decision making and can be used above all the other methods of evaluating evidence.
Both the methods for evaluating evidence are similar because they involve the collection of data from different sources and summarizing all the evidence and results of the studies.
While systematic review collects and summarizes all the empirical evidence, the meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of the studies.
Second, Meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the numerical results from such studies, if it is possible to do. On the other hand, a systematic review is a formal, systematic and structured approach to review all the relevant literature on a topic.
Third, the rationale for Meta-analysis is that through the combination of samples from different studies the overall sample size is increased, while the rationale for systematic reviews is that when data is pooled together from different sources, greater reliability would be obtained.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Melnyk BM, Fineout- Overholt E, Mays MZ. The evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: psychometric properties of two new instruments. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(4):208-216.