Introduction
Though the title of the article is short, it comprehensively expresses the impact of the study. The introduction affirms that though information regarding pathophysiology, in addition to treatment of sepsis in individuals across the lifetime exists in health and nursing studies, the capability of nurses and other health professionals to properly and effectively identify sepsis, particularly in the course of early phases, remains fairly wavering. Present studies establish that clear and well-timed interventions in the treatment of patients with sepsis could considerably reduce the death rates of grown-ups and pediatric patients (Jeffery, Mutsch, & Knapp, 2014). Nevertheless, it should be recognized that treatment of sepsis can just start following suitable evaluation and diagnosis. The introduction draws the concentration of the reader as it thoroughly exemplifies the worth of the study in a highly sensitive topic.
Statement of Purpose
The authors included a clear statement of purpose in the article. The statement of purpose clearly ascertains the rationale behind the study to be the indirect measurement of the understanding of acute care pediatric nurses with respect to Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) diagnostic criterion, sepsis strategies, and the significance of SIRS identification. The authors employed an indirect assessment because of the intricacy of assessing nursing knowledge articulated as performance and since the practice greatly connects with knowledge (Jeffery et al., 2014).
Research Questions
The authors employed two research questions in the study, which are stated subsequent to the purpose of the study. The two questions are just based on the knowledge of nurses and none on the best method of addressing SIRS and sepsis, which carries a great weight of the research.
Literature Review
Regardless of the ample application of substantiation (referencing) with regard to the preparations for the study in the introduction section, the article failed to depend on pre-existing studies profoundly in the review of the literature. The literature review is weak and short thus inadequately covering the topic. Moreover, the literature review does not splendidly reveal the way the knowledge of nurses or successful methods have been applied in the management of SIRS and sepsis to enhance the quality of care. On this note, the literature review is incomprehensive.
Methodology
Out of 1,500 nurses that were qualified to take part in the study, 242 finished the survey (Jeffery et al., 2014). The sample size was large enough to carry out the quantitative study. The sample for the study is easily recognized from the article and is supported by the demographic variables, which encompassed years of experience, age, and gender to mention a few. However, the sample was biased in that females consisted of 95 percent of the entire participants thus resulting in poor representation of male nurses. In this regard, the sample failed to include an even representation with respect to gender and that could have affected the results of the study as the knowledge of male nurses was underrepresented. Moreover, the explanation regarding the selection of the sample lacks precision. The participants were selected from a large metropolitan pediatric hospital in a Midwestern country and others from organizations, and since it is not evidently mentioned, the reader is just left to assume that the participants represent a convenience sample.
Presentation and Analysis of Data
The application of both Likert and non-Likert questions led to a thorough presentation and analysis of data with every information discussed in detail. The non-Likert part was composed of fifty items with the first set asking participants to report on the recognition of sepsis, the second requiring selection of signs and symptoms of SIRS or sepsis in a patient, and the third asking for the choice of diagnostic tests involved in the early management of SIRS or sepsis. The answers on the Likert scales illustrated that augments in the years of experience as a nurse enhanced the possibility of selecting Agree or Strongly Agree on the scale (Jeffery et al., 2014).
Implications and Discussion
Within the implications part, the authors concentrated on the outcomes of their present study and the manner in which it could be employed to enhance future research with respect to reducing mortality through recognition of SIRS and sepsis prior to the development of advanced sepsis or septic shock. This acted as great worth of the article as it makes recommendations for guiding future studies. Before the discussion section, the authors pointed out limitations in the research such as small sample size as well as multidimensionality of study design, which raised the possibilities of inaccuracies (Jeffery et al., 2014).
Conclusion
The authors failed to include a conclusion section of their study, and one would assume that it is merged with the discussion. Nevertheless, the discussion part is too small thus inadequately discussing the study. The authors tackle a sensitive subject with the issues of SIRS and sepsis and the influence of caregivers in ensuring quality of care, which leads to a great necessity for an intervention. Regardless of a number of weaknesses, the authors inclusively handled the subject matter and recommended the best intervention to handle the predicament successfully.
Reference
Jeffery, A. D., Mutsch, K. S., & Knapp, L. (2014). Knowledge and recognition of SIRS and sepsis among pediatric nurses. Pediatric Nursing, 40(6), 271-278.