Purpose
The purpose of the research is well articulated and aims to analyze the differences between rapid response teams (RRTs) in top-performing and non-top-performing hospitals (Dukes et al., 2019).
Research Question
The research question is clearly and concisely stated: How do rapid response teams differ between top-performing and non–top-performing hospitals for resuscitation care?
Justification for Using Qualitative Method
The research article does not provide a justification for choosing the qualitative method of study chosen, but instead dives into detailing how the method is applied in the research.
Phenomenon of Research
The phenomenon analyzed in the research is clearly stated, with the study focusing on the differences in staffing of the RRTs in the top and non-top-performing hospitals.
Study Sample Participants
The study sample consisted of a total of 158 respondents to the interview. The respondents were chosen from each of the 9 participating hospitals which met the inclusion criteria (Dukes et al., 2019). The study sample participants were representative because both the top and non-top-performing hospitals were included in the study. The study sample also represented all the different cadres that made the RRTs, including nurses, physicians, clinical staff, and administrators.
Participants Characteristics
The sample characteristics are described with a focus on the different careers within the medical professions the participants belong to. Nurses, physicians, clinical staff, and administrators are all represented in the study.
Sampling Adequacy
Sampling was adequate because each of the 9 participating hospitals was involved. Between 12 and 30 participants answered the questions at each hospital, ensuring that no hospital had a considerable advantage over another.
Data Collection Bias
The research made deliberate efforts to eliminate interviewer bias by ensuring they remained blinded on whether the hospital they collected data from was top or non-top performing. The interviews additionally relied on interview guides developed prior by a multidisciplinary team to eliminate interviewer bias (Dukes et al., 2019). All interviews were audio recorded to prevent bias that would occur during interpretation and written recording by the interviewer.
Data Analysis
Verification of Trustworthiness of Analysis
There was no verification process in every step by checking and confirming with participants the trustworthiness of the analysis and interpretation. This means that the participants were not involved in determining the methods of data analysis, reducing its validity.
Description of how Data was Analyzed
There is a description of the data analysis process, and the research article provides a candid description of the process of developing the thematic analysis. The data collected was analyzed based on four themes and the findings are provided in the research article.
Findings Supported by Narrative Data
The findings of the research are supported by narrative data where a few of the participant’s quotes are included. This boosts the validity of the study.
Conclusions Clearly Explained
The conclusions of the research are clearly explained, with four candid differences being identified between top-performing hospitals and non-top-performing hospitals (Dukes et al., 2019). These four conclusions were that top-level hospitals have more dedicated staff, collaboration with bedside nurses, activation without fear, and RRT engagement in the surveillance of at-risk patients.
Study Findings Trustworthy
The study findings appear trustworthy due to the representative nature of the study participants and the aim to eliminate bias throughout the process. Additionally, the data collection and analysis methods are aimed at reducing errors and ensuring the accuracy and validity of the data are maintained.
Contribution of Meaningful Evidence
The research contributes meaningfully to nursing practice by providing a framework for improving the RRTs at various healthcare facilities. The four outstanding themes are vital for healthcare centers to enhance their emergency centers for better patient outcomes.
Quality Rating
The research deserves a high-quality rating due to its outstanding features and the desire of the researchers to meet the necessary qualifications of an outstanding research paper. The research boasts immense transparency as the documentation of the data collection process is spotless, to minimize errors related to this undertaking (Singh et al., 2021). The research illustrates diligence as the researchers deliberately make multiple references to other publications and peer-reviewed articles in the introduction section, and this lays a vital foundation for the research. Self-reflection and self-scrutiny are illustrated in the data collection process where the methodology chosen seeks to eliminate bias by blinding the researcher (Dukes et al., 2019). This ensures their prejudice and personal convictions do not determine their line of questioning during the interviews. Additionally, there is a predetermined interview guide to prevent human nature from misleading the endeavor of data collection.
Insightful interpretation is an outstanding feature of the research and is indicated in the discussion section of the research. The researcher analyzes the research findings within this component in tandem with the available literature on the topic of study. This ensures that the discussion is based on sound literature and evades the temptation to rely on intuition during the process. Additionally, the data analysis process and the choice to choose the four themes are guided by previous studies and grounded on the prominence of these themes in the literature done beforehand (Dukes et al., 2019). This guarantees a sound process of bias-deficient data analysis, making the research a high-quality work. I would feel comfortable using the study as part of an evidence-based policy chance decision in my workplace.
References
Dukes, K., Bunch, J. L., Chan, P. S., Guetterman, T. C., Lehrich, J. L., Trumpower, B., Harrod, M., Krein, S. L., Kellenberg, J. E., Reisinger, H. S., Kronick, S. L., Iwashyna, T. J., Nallamothu, B. K., & Girotra, S. (2019). Assessment of rapid response teams at top-performing hospitals for in-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA Internal Medicine, 179(10), 1398–1405. Web.
Singh, M., Thirsk, L., Stahlke, S., Venkatesaperumal, R., LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2021). Nursing research in Canada – e-book: Methods, critical appraisal, and utilization. In Google Books. Elsevier Health Sciences.