Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Essay

Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Essay

Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Essay

Hospitals should always be safe environments for patients and health care professionals. Health practices should be ethical and professional and embody safety and quality as core values. Although health care professionals apply different strategies to optimize safety in hospitals, hospital-acquired infections such as surgical site infections still occur. Their magnitude varies depending on safety procedures, knowledge of health care professionals, and patient-provider relationship, among other factors. Quantitative research explores various strategies nurses can use to prevent surgical site infections. The purpose of this paper is to critique quantitative studies comparing the effectiveness of hand rubbing with alcohol and handwashing in reducing surgical site infections.

Background

Surgical site infections adversely affect health outcomes in patients who undergo surgical procedures. They are leading causes of extended hospital stays, readmissions, and overall degeneration of patients’ health (Nthumba, 2020). Such outcomes also increase health care costs. Khairnar et al. (2020) posited that hands are the most typical medium for infection initiation and spreading in health care settings. In response, hand hygiene can effectively reduce hospital-associated infections, integral in enhancing patient safety and reducing overall care costs. The purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of alcohol-based hand sanitizer, liquid soap, and their combination. The outcome would guide nurses and other health care professionals in choosing the most appropriate hand hygiene method. The study sought to answer whether there is any significant difference between the hand hygiene methods.

Many other quantitative research studies have compared the effectiveness of handwashing and hand rub liquids. Nasution et al. (2019) conjectured that hand hygiene could effectively reduce hospital-acquired infections (HAIS), but nurses must select the most appropriate method. Considering that HAIs adversely affect patients’ health care and treatment duration, nurses must understand the difference between alcohol-based hand rubs and handwashing liquids. As a result, this study aimed to determine the effectiveness of handwashing method compared to hand rub in eliminating microorganisms on nurses’ hands (Nasution et al., 2019). The objective was to analyze their suitability and answer the research question of whether there is any significant difference between the two methods.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE-PAPER HERE

How the Articles Support the Nurse Practice Issue

PICOT Question: Among patients who undergo surgical procedures (P), how effective is hand rubbing with alcohol (I) use of the waterless, alcohol-based solution in addition (C) compared to handwashing with soap and water (O) in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (T)over a three-month period?

As the PICOT question hypothesizes, hand rubbing with alcohol and handwashing with soap and water differs in their effectiveness in reducing the incidence of surgical site infections. As a result, Nasution et al. (2019) and Khairnar et al. (2020) articles will illustrate the difference between the two hand hygiene methods and serve as the basis for recommending the most appropriate method for nurses to prevent surgical site infections.

Interventions and comparison groups differ significantly. Nasution et al. (2019) used three groups: liquid hand-wash, alcohol-based sanitizer, and the combination group. On the other hand, Khairnar et al. (2020) had two groups involved: the first group used handwashing with soap, and the second group used hand rub. In each study, handwashing and hand rubbing using an alcohol-based solution are compared as described in the PICOT question.

 

Method of the Study

Nasution et al. (2019) conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. In this study in a dental college, 90 participants were randomly assigned into three groups of 30 members each. In a single-blinded randomized controlled trial, participants do not know the treatment or intervention they are receiving until the trial is complete. On the other hand, Khairnar et al. (2020) conducted an experimental analytic study with pre-test and post-test designs. In such a study, researchers introduce the intervention and study its effects. Experimental studies are usually randomized, implying that subjects are grouped by chance. Each study method has various benefits and limitations. A leading benefit of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial is randomization, which eliminates bias in treatment assignment (Lim & In, 2019). Blinding also maximizes the validity of results. However, trials testing for the effectiveness of treatments or interventions require large samples, making such studies expensive. Besides randomization, which minimizes bias, experimental research gives researchers high control. However, results are likely to be subjective.

Results of Study

Nasution et al. (2019) studied the difference in hand hygiene methods in reducing microbial colonies on hands. The primary finding was that combining handwashing and hand rubbing was the most effective method, with a median percentage reduction of 100%. Alcohol-based sanitizer followed at 94.29%, and handwashing liquid soap was the last at 92.31%. Overall, all methods effectively reduce microbial colonies on hands; their difference is clinically significant but not statistically significant.

Khairnar et al. (2020) found no significant difference between handwashing and hand rubbing with alcohol-based solutions (p = 0.088). As a result, nurses can use the solution available as situations necessitate. In some situations, handwashing can be more effective than alcohol-based solutions.

Regarding the implications of the two studies, health care professionals should do everything possible to reduce surgical site infections. Hand hygiene effectively reduces bacterial contamination. Nasution et al. (2019) and Khairnar et al. (2020) confirmed that nurses’ ability to reduce surgical site infections might not necessarily depend on the hand hygiene solution used since alcohol hand rubbing and handwashing are equally effective. Duane et al. (2022) confirmed the efficacy of both methods and argued that alcohol-based solutions are only preferred for planetary health. Health care providers can use each method and achieve the same results, although training is crucial to change their attitude and improve hygiene compliance (Engdaw et al., 2019; Breidablik et al., 2020). Due to the effectiveness of each method, hospitals should invest in the alternative they can afford and ensure it is available and nurses know how to use it.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE-PAPER HERE

Outcomes Comparison

As described in the PICOT question, a significant difference between alcohol-based hand rubbing and handwashing using soap and water is expected. If stated differently, hand rubbing using alcohol solutions was expected to be more effective than handwashing using soap and water. Although there is a clinically significant difference, the compared studies show no statistically significant difference to prove that alcohol hand rubbing is more effective than handwashing using soap and water.

Ethical Considerations

Ethics is a critical consideration when conducting research involving human subjects. Ethical considerations dominating the studies include study approval by an institutional ethical committee, informed consent, and involving adults of sound mind. Subjects who were unwilling to participate, with any fresh injury, or history of allergy to soap or alcohol solutions were excluded. Such considerations ensured that the studies observed the principles for medical research involving human subjects and were free from harm.

Conclusions

Surgical site infections occur at the points of an incision or during the actual surgical procedure. They extend hospital stays, cause readmissions, and increase the overall care costs. Nurses should explore evidence-based strategies to reduce such infections. As described in this paper, alcohol-based solutions and handwashing with soap and water are highly effective. They can be used interchangeably since there is no statistically significant difference between them in the two compared quantitative studies.

References

Breidablik, H. J., Lysebo, D. E., Johannessen, L., Skare, Å., Andersen, J. R., & Kleiven, O. (2020). Effects of hand disinfection with alcohol hand rub, ozonized water, or soap and water: Time for reconsideration?. The Journal of hospital infection, 105(2), 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.014

Duane, B., Pilling, J., Saget, S., Ashley, P., Pinhas, A. R., & Lyne, A. (2022). Hand hygiene with hand sanitizer versus handwashing: What are the planetary health consequences?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18918-4

Engdaw, G. T., Gebrehiwot, M., & Andualem, Z. (2019). Hand hygiene compliance and associated factors among health care providers in Central Gondar zone public primary hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 8(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-019-0634-z

Khairnar, M. R., G, A., Dalvi, T. M., Kalghatgi, S., Datar, U. V., Wadgave, U., Shah, S., & Preet, L. (2020). Comparative efficacy of hand disinfection potential of hand sanitizer and liquid soap among dental students: A randomized controlled trial. Indian journal of Critical Care Medicine: Peer-Reviewed, Official Publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 24(5), 336–339. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23420

Lim, C. Y., & In, J. (2019). Randomization in clinical studies. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 72(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19049

Nasution, T. A., Yunita, R., Pasaribu, A. P., & Ardinata, F. M. (2019). Effectiveness hand washing and hand rub method in reducing total bacteria colony from nurses in Medan. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 7(20), 3380. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.427

Nthumba, P. M. (2020). effective hand preparation for surgical procedures in low-and middle-income countries. Surgical Infections, 21(6), 495-500. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2020.025

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE-PAPER HERE

Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations
SUBMIT ASSIGNMENT
Points
190
Rubric
View Rubric
Status
Upcoming
Assessment Traits
Requires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description
Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two quantitative research studies. Use the “Research Critique Guidelines – Part II” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide a rationale, include examples, and reference content from the study in your responses.
Use the practice problem and two quantitative, peer-reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment.
In a 1,100–1,250 word essay, summarize two quantitative studies, explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study.
You are required to cite a minimum of FIVE peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
PLEASE ENSURE TWO QUANTITATIVE EBP ARTICLES STRONGLY SUPPORT PICOT QUESTION BELOW!!
PLEASE READ THE RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINES-PART II DOCUMENT TO ORGANIZE THE ESSAY AND SEE THE RUBRIC FOR REQUIREMENTS!!
REFERENCES AND FORMATTING MUST BE IN APA 7 FORMAT

PICOT Question
Among patients who undergo surgical procedures (P) how effective is hand rubbing with alcohol (I) use of waterless, alcohol-based solution in addition (C) compared to handwashing with soap and water (O) reducing the incidence of surgical site infection (T)over a three-month period

Change Topic
Surgical site infections are a major concern that contributes to adverse health outcomes in patients who undergo surgical procedures. There is a need to determine the ideal hand sanitation procedures for nurses that reduce the risks of surgical site infections.
Summary of Clinical Problem
Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) are infections that occur at the points of an incision during the postoperative phase, and sometimes during the actual surgical procedure. These kinds of infections may be acquired within a hospital or at home after a patient is discharged from inpatient care and surgical recovery. Some factors that may contribute to SSIs include improper or inadequate sterilization of surgical equipment, improper cleaning of the site of incision, and insufficient hand hygiene by surgical staff, which is the specific focus of the proposed study. SSIs affect the care process adversely by lengthening patients’ duration of admission and recovery from surgery, resulting in readmissions for patients who were previously discharged, contributing to the degeneration of patients’ health, and increasing the overall costs of care. It is important to have facility-level protocols that guide practitioners on the ideal strategies for hand hygiene prior to surgical operations, and in preparation for wound care in the aftermath of surgery. Two common alternatives for hand hygiene include thorough washing with soap and warm water and hand rubbing with sanitary alcohol solution. The choice of preferable hand hygiene option is influenced by factors like cost and accessibility, which leads to some variation in facility-level hand hygiene practices among surgical nursing staff. Therefore, the proposed study aims to determine the ideal hand sanitation procedures for surgical nurses that reduce the risks of surgical site infections.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE-PAPER HERE

Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations – Rubric

Collapse All Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique And Ethical Considerations – RubricCollapse All

Quantitative Studies

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Quantitative Studies

5. : Excellent

9.5 points

Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.

4. 4: Good

8.93 points

N/A

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.89 points

N/A

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.13 points

Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on quantitative research.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use quantitative research.

Background of Study

19 points

Criteria Description

Background of Study

5. : Excellent

19 points

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.

4. 4: Good

17.86 points

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.

3. 3: Satisfactory

15.77 points

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

14.25 points

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete.

Article Support of Nursing Practice

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Article Support of Nursing Practice

5. : Excellent

28.5 points

A clear discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles strongly compare to those identified in the PICOT question.

4. 4: Good

26.79 points

A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support.

3. 3: Satisfactory

23.65 points

A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

21.38 points

A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail is required.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete.

Method of Study

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Method of Study

5. : Excellent

28.5 points

A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is described in detail. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods.

4. 4: Good

26.79 points

A discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is generally described. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. There minor are inaccuracies. Some detail is required for accuracy or clarity.

3. 3: Satisfactory

23.65 points

A general discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is summarized. A benefit and a limitation of each method are summarized. There some inaccuracies or partial omissions. More information is needed.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

21.38 points

A partial summary of the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is incomplete. A benefit and a limitation of each method are omitted or incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Discussion on the method of study for each article is omitted. The comparison of study methods is omitted or incomplete.

Results of Study

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Results of Study

5. : Excellent

28.5 points

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.

4. 4: Good

26.79 points

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation.

3. 3: Satisfactory

23.65 points

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is generally presented. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explanation.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

21.38 points

A summary of the study results includes findings and implications for nursing practice but lacks relevant details and explanation. There are some omissions or inaccuracies.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE-PAPER HERE

Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison

28.5 points

Criteria Description

Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison

5. : Excellent

28.5 points

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are thoroughly discussed. A detailed comparison of research article outcomes to the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented in detail.

4. 4: Good

26.79 points

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are discussed. A comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity.

3. 3: Satisfactory

23.65 points

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is generally presented. More information is needed to fully establish how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

21.38 points

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are partially summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes contains omissions of key information. It is unclear how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are omitted or are unrealistic. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is incomplete.

Thesis Development and Purpose

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. : Excellent

9.5 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. 4: Good

8.93 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.89 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.13 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. : Excellent

9.5 points

Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. 4: Good

8.93 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.89 points

Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.13 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. : Excellent

9.5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. 4: Good

8.93 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.89 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.13 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE-PAPER HERE

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. : Excellent

9.5 points

All format elements are correct.

4. 4: Good

8.93 points

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.89 points

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.13 points

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

9.5 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. : Excellent

9.5 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. 4: Good

8.93 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. 3: Satisfactory

7.89 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

7.13 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.

Total 190 points