Title That Conveys or Describes the Assignment (Same as Title Page)
Introduction: Provide an introduction to your topic or project. The introduction gives the reader an accurate, concrete understanding of hat the project will cover ad what can be gained from implantation of your project. References should be used.
Date: due date (complete sentence not necessary)
Reviewer: student’s name (complete sentence not necessary)
Article Citation (APA 7th)
Overview of Article
- Why was the study done?
Was there a clear explanation of the purpose of the study and, if so, what was it? The research question, hypothesis, purpose of the study, etc. can be covered here. Is the study purpose an important clinical issue?
- What is the sample size?
Were there enough people in the study to establish that the findings did not occur by chance? What type of sampling was used?
- Are the instruments of the major variables valid and reliable?
How were variables defined? Were the instruments designed to measure a concept valid (did they measure what the researchers said they measured)? Were they reliable (did they measure a concept the same way every time they were used)?
- How were the data analyzed?
What statistics were used to determine if the purpose of the study was achieved? Was a specific software that interprets statistics mentioned?
- Were there any untoward events during the study?
Did people leave the study and, if so, was there something special about them?
- How do the results fit with previous research in the area?
Did the researchers base their work on a thorough literature review?
- What does this research mean for clinical practice?
- What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Conclusion
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References
References are not necessary, but if you use any they should be listed here.
NSG 502 – Quantitative Research Article Review Template
Hospital-acquired infection is a major problem in healthcare settings. Hospital-acquired infections are also known as healthcare-associated infections. These conditions affect millions of patients annually across the globe. They are also the leading cause of most complications in healthcare (Maroldi et al., 2017). Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) can lead to health complications, increased length of hospital stays, and high cost of care delivery to both the patient and the healthcare facility. The purpose of this paper is to review a quantitative research study by discussing important areas of the selected article. The important sections include the purpose, sample size, instruments used, data analysis, untoward events (if any), results, implications, and strengths and limitations of the study.
Article Citation
Haverstick, S., Goodrich, C., Freeman, R., James, S., Kullar, R., & Ahrens, M. (2017). Patients’ hand washing and reducing hospital-acquired infection. Critical care nurse, 37(3), e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694
Overview of Article
Why was the study done?
The selected article is “Patients’ Hand Washing and Reducing Hospital Acquired Infection” by Haverstick et al. (2017). This article provided a clear explanation of the study’s purpose to enable readers to understand its importance and the need to read further. The study’s purpose was to improve patients’ hand hygiene through the promotion and use of hand washing with soap and water, hand sanitizer, or both and improve patients’ education to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Therefore, it was a comprehensive study purpose that is touching several areas such as using hand washing with soap and water and hand sanitizer (Haverstick et al., 2017). It also speaks about using those techniques to improve hand hygiene and reduce HAIs.
The authors stated that the study was done to determine whether increased assess to hand hygiene products and patient education could lead to a reduction in the transmission rate of HAIs (Haverstick et al., 2017). Specifically, the rates of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and Clostridium difficile. Concisely, the study was assessing the effectiveness of hand hygiene in reducing the rates of hospital-acquired infections.
What is the sample size?
The sample in this study were patients in an adult 36-bed cardiothoracic surgical step-down unit at the University of Michigan Health System. The healthcare setting is a large medical center in Midwest, United States. Although there was no precise number of participants, the authors stated that there all patients in the unit were included in the study (Haverstick et al., 2017). Therefore, one can assume that the whole population was involved. These patients had limited mobility, as the majority of them could not get to the sink to wash their hands without assistance. The researchers used purposive sampling to complete the study. Patients received an alcohol-based hand sanitizer or wipes and a brochure about the importance of hand hygiene. According to Oshagbemi (2017), purposive sampling is also called judgmental, selective, or subjective sampling. It is a form of non-probability sampling whereby the researchers rely on their judgment to select samples.
Are the instruments of the major variables valid and reliable?
The independent variables include access to hand hygiene products and education. The dependent variables include hand hygiene compliance, hand hygiene knowledge, and the rates of HAIs (Haverstick et al., 2017). The researchers, therefore, measured hand hygiene compliance, knowledge, and the rates of hospital-acquired infections. To track hand hygiene compliance and knowledge, a survey questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was developed by the researchers, therefore, its reliability is not known.
The questionnaire was administered to patients before the intervention, one month after the intervention, two months, and three months respectively (Haverstick et al., 2017). The survey questionnaire consisted of six questions to test patients’ compliance. The rates of hospital-acquired infections were measured using the facility’s Unit-specific infection control data. There was no explanation of how the information was captured in the Unit-specific infection control data (Haverstick et al., 2017). Similarly, the reliability of the Unit-specific infection control data is not known. However, their validity is assured because they measured exactly what the researchers intended.
How were the data analyzed?
The authors stated that Statistical analyses were conducted by using SPSS version 21 and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used because of the small sample size and the underpowered study (Significance was set at the .05 level). The SPSS version 21.0 helps improve decision-making and productivity through simulation modeling and augmented integration with other tools (Haverstick et al., 2017). The tool focuses on increasing the analytical capabilities by building better models from uncertain inputs while assessing risk using Monte Carlo simulation techniques. The A Wilcoxon rank sum test revealed a significant difference in the VRE infection rates from before (median, 1.6) and after (median, 0.50) the intervention (U=83.50, z=-2.975, P=.003, r=0.48) (Haverstick et al., 2017). In addition, a Wilcoxon rank sum test revealed a significant difference in the MRSA rates before (median, 0.82) and after (median, 0.50) the intervention (U= 102.500, z=-2.484, P=.01, r=0.40).
Were there any untoward events during the study?
The authors did not report any cases of untoward events during the study. Similarly, there were no reports about participants leaving the study before completion. The interaction between the implementation team, nurses who were patient assistants, and patients could have affected the survey responses due to external influence (Haverstick et al., 2017). This situation during the study could have led to some biases.
How do the results fit with previous research in the area?
This research study was not based on a thorough literature review. First, there was no literature review section, although there was a little bit of background information. A literature review is an important aspect of a research study. Oshagbemi (2017) states that the literature review section provides a proper foundation of knowledge on the topic. It helps identify areas of prior research, similarity in research findings, and knowledge gap. Although this study was not based on a thorough literature review, the results are consistent with what Maroldi et al. (2017) found in their study. Maroldi et al. (2017) concluded in their study that weakness in knowledge is a hindrance to HAIs control. Similarly, Haverstick et al. (2017) found that hand hygiene education and access are effective in reducing HAI rates.
What does this research mean for clinical practice?
This study has a significant impact on clinical practice because it focuses on reducing hospital-acquired infection rates within the care setting. HAI is a serious health issue that is associated with detrimental health outcomes. Healthcare-associated infections are used as a measure of the quality of care delivered to patients (Maroldi et al., 2017). Escalating incidences of HAIs are a reflection of the poor quality of healthcare. This research study provided nurses with knowledge regarding HAI prevention. Furthermore, the results of the study can be used to design a quality improvement initiative to prevent HAI incidences. These conditions can lead to further health complications, prolonged hospital stays, and a high cost of care (Haverstick et al., 2017). Enhancing hand hygiene to reduce HAI incidences will in turn reduce the cost of care, reduce the length of hospital stay, and reduce health complications.
What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
This study had several strengths, for instance, the study purpose aligns with the study methodology. The paper used valid and reliable statistical methods of analysis. Furthermore, the available information regarding methodology was clear and easy to understand. However, there were also several limitations. For example, a single medical center study limits its generalizability (Haverstick et al., 2017). The study results were compared retrospectively rather than with the results of a randomized control group. Furthermore, there was no detailed information regarding sampling and evaluation.
Conclusion
Hospital-acquired infection is a serious health concern that needs urgent attention. The selected study aimed to assess the impact of hand hygiene in reducing HAI incidences. Various instruments were used to conduct the study. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 21. Wilcoxon rank sum test was also used for analysis. There were no noticeable untoward events. The strengths and weaknesses of the articles were also identified.
References
Haverstick, S., Goodrich, C., Freeman, R., James, S., Kullar, R., & Ahrens, M. (2017). Patients’ hand washing and reducing hospital-acquired infection. Critical care nurse, 37(3), e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694
Maroldi, M. A. C., Felix, A. M. D. S., Dias, A. A. L., Kawagoe, J. Y., Padoveze, M. C., Ferreira, S. A., … & Figueiredo, R. M. (2017). Adherence to precautions for preventing the transmission of microorganisms in primary health care: a qualitative study. BMC nursing, 16(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-017-0245-z
Oshagbemi, T. (2017). Chapter4. Research Design and Methodology’. Leadership and Management in Universities, 67-95. https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/24016/04chapter4.pdf