Critiquing Two Quantitative Studies: An Evaluation. Free Essay

The paper aims at critiquing two quantitative studies selected from the provided articles in the literature evaluation table. This critique will follow the quantitative research guidelines that focus on five sections that include background, the support of the articles to the chosen nurse practice, study methods, results of the study, as well as outcomes comparison. The selected quantitative studies for critique are listed below.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Background

The study by Rajan, MK, Thomas, & Williams (2018) is a study to assess the knowledge and practice of nurses concerning oral hygiene among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) who are in critical conditions. The study occurred at Mysuru, and the focus of the analysis was to establish an oral care program (Rajan et al., 2018). The investigation is of significance to nursing because it evaluates the level of the nurses' knowledge of ensuring oral hygiene care in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The research answers a specific study question of what are the levels and incidences of VAP in the intensive care unit and do nurse have the required knowledge and information needed for the prevention of VAP? The expected outcome of the study is to have an understanding of the rates and incidences of VAP among critically ill patients in the ICU (Rajan et al., 2018). The other expected outcome of the investigation is to have interventions on how to teach nurses on oral hygiene for the prevention of VAP among critically ill patients in ICU.

On the other hand, the study by Timsit, Esaied, Neuville, Bouadma, & Mourvillier, (2017) has the purpose of providing an update of VAP with a focus on analyzing the existing information regarding the illness. The selected areas of analysis about VAP include epidemiology, etiology, as well as psychophysiology that help in providing updated information concerning VAP (Timsit et al., 2017). The research question that the study seeks to answer is what does the available trending information on VAP help in the process of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the illness to assist in the reduction of incidences? The assessment has a basis on the existing information of critically ill patients in the ICUs diagnosed with respiratory diseases. The study is also linked to nursing because it provides information that improves the quality and safety of patient care when handling critically ill patients having VAP (Timsit et al., 2017). As a result, nurses will be in a position to stabilize patients in ICUs with VAP by the use of appropriate oral hygiene techniques like the use of antimicrobials.

How the Articles Support the Chosen Nurse Practice Issue

The two articles support caring for critically ill patients with VAP in various ways as indicated in the PICOT. First, the study by Rajan et al. (2018) concerns the assessing the knowledge for oral hygiene for patients in the ICU to help in coming up with interventions for reducing the incidences of VAP as illustrated in the PICOT question. The study by Timsit et al. (2017) is also in support of the PICOT question by evaluating the effective ways of diagnosing, treating, or preventing VAP among critically ill patients having respiratory illnesses in the ICU. The study is in line with the PICOT question by providing information that will help to reduce the cases of VAP by using antimicrobials for oral hygiene. As a result, the two articles help answer the PICOT question by supporting the need for oral hygiene in the prevention of VAP among patients in need of ventilation.

Additionally, the interventions and comparisons groups involved in the article compare with the ones in the PICOT question. The PICOT question is about VAP incidences reduction in patients that require ventilation. The study by Rajan et al. (2018) focuses on critically ill patients in the ICU who need ventilation. The study will assist in seeking a solution for the PICOT question by providing information on the need for oral hygiene by nurses in reducing the cases of VAP among patients in the ICU. Likewise, the study by Timsit et al. (2017) concerns the group of patients with respiratory complications in the ICU who are also in need of ventilation. The PICOT question finds an answer from the article by getting information on how the use of antimicrobials leads to the prevention of VAP among patients requiring ventilation. The study provides information on how patients with respiratory complications require ventilation for a sustained life as seen in the PICOT question. Therefore, the two articles' intervention and groups compare with the PICOT question.

Method of Study

The two studies used different kinds of research method. Research by Rajan et al. (2018) used descriptive design while Timsit et al. (2017) employed a case study method of study. A descriptive type of research method used by Rajan et al. (2018) describes the subject, situation, phenomenon, or behavior. This kind of research answers the question of where, who, what, how, and when that is linked to a specific research question. Descriptive study method leads to gathering quantifiable data for statistical analysis. Using descriptive study does not manipulate the subject because it is not experimental but observational.

On the other hand, the case study research method applied by Timsit et al. (2017) is whereby the researcher examines a specified problem by collecting data across populations. Case study research method leads to the discovery of general information about a population by describing the phenomenon at hand. Through the case study, the researcher finds information that acts as a hypothesis for future investigations.

As seen from the illustrations above, case study differs from the descriptive design method in various ways. First, the case study is experimental while descriptive is observations. The other difference between the two methods is that descriptive design provides new knowledge to the field of study while case study enhances the existing information through correlation and analysis.

Both descriptive design and case study methods have some benefits and limitations. First, descriptive design research has the benefit of results credibility because it does not manipulate the subjects. Under descriptive design, there is the explanation of a phenomenon without manipulating or influencing the variables, a situation that leads to reliable findings (Rajan et al., 2018). The other merit for descriptive design is the provision of new knowledge that helps in filling information gaps in the areas of study. In spite of advantages, descriptive design research method also has the limitation of failure to discover inferences for making predictions or explaining causal relationships.

Like the descriptive design, case study method has both advantages and disadvantages. One of the merits of using a case study in research is the provision of in-depth information about a phenomenon because of multiple investigations across populations. Another benefit of case study is that it provides a comprehensive exploration that offers a strong basis for theory development (Timsit et al., 2017). Despite the advantages, the case study has the limitation of complexity when it comes to organizing, analyzing, and integrating data from multiple investigations.

Results of the Study

Each study led to key findings that are helpful in nursing practice. Research by Rajan et al. (2018) found out that nurses do not have the required knowledge and practice concerning oral hygiene care for patients in the ICU. The other result of the study is that there are high occurrences and prevalence of VAP among patients admitted in the ICU. The findings of the study indicate that inadequate information by nurses in the prevention of VAP contributes to increases cases of VAP in patients admitted in the ICU. The results for the survey by Timsit et al. (2017), on the other hand, showed that existing information on the VAP is not adequately used in the prevention of the illness. There is a need for applying various techniques for oral hygiene care among critically ill patients having respiratory complications. The other finding of the study was that patients in the ICU require an assignment to antimicrobial dosages to prevent the development of VAP.

Following the above findings, the two articles have some implications in the nursing practice. First, the study by Rajan et al. (2018) leads to quality and safe patient care because of the need for the development of oral care protocol for a patient admitted in the ICU. Since nurses do not have the required knowledge for oral care, the healthcare facilities have the responsibility of coming up with oral care protocol that will include the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge for oral hygiene for the prevention of VAP. The outcome will be the provision of quality and safe care to patients admitted in the ICU. The other study by Timsit et al. (2017) will also improve nursing practice by enabling caregivers to have updated information concerning the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VAP for improved patient outcomes. The suggestions for oral care interventions by the study will enable nurses to apply appropriate prevention techniques to critically ill patients, a situation that will enhance illness prevention and patient recovery.

Outcomes Comparison

From this critical analysis, the PICOT question has some anticipated outcome. The first outcome is the effectiveness of oral hygiene care in causing a reduction of VAP among patients requiring ventilation. The other outcome of the PICOT question is the promotion of early mobility and increased number of nurses with knowledge and skills for effective oral hygiene (Rajan et al., 2018). The application of oral hygiene by nurses in the prevention of VAP will increase because of the knowledge gained on its effectiveness. The management of patients requiring ventilation who are admitted in the ICU will contribute to quality and safety patient care because of enhanced oral hygiene care (Timsit et al., 2017). Therefore, using oral hygiene care will lead to reduced incidence and prevalence of VAP among patients admitted in the ICU who need adequate ventilation.

The outcomes of the two studies also have a comparison with the PICOT question. The survey by Rajan et al. (2018) shows that the prevalence and incidence of VAP have a high chance of reducing when oral hygiene care ends up included in treatment procedure for patients admitted in the ICU. From the study, using oral care hygiene will reduce the incidences and prevalence of VAP in critically ill patients. Therefore, the outcome of the survey by Rajan et al. (2018) is in line with the one in the PICOT questions outcome. Research by Timsit et al. (2017) also compares with the outcomes of the PICOT question. The outcome of the study is that antimicrobial is essential in the prevention of VAP as proposed in the PICOT question that oral hygiene care reduces the incidences and prevalence of VAP. Therefore the study by Timsit et al. (2017) compares with the expected outcomes of the PICOT question.

References

Rajan, T., MK, A. D., Thomas, U. M., G, M., & Williams, S. (2018). Knowledge and Practice of Staff Nurses Regarding Oral Hygiene in Critically Ill Patients Admitted in Critical Care Units of Selected Hospital at Mysuru, with a View to Develop an Oral Care Protocol. International Journal of Nursing Education, 10(1), 125-131. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.5958/0974-9357.2018.00025.9

Timsit, J. F., Esaied, W., Neuville, M., Bouadma, L., & Mourvillier, B. (2017). Update on ventilator-associated pneumonia. F1000Research, 6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710313/.