Analysis of the Article
For this assessment, I have selected the publication What Patient Characteristics Guide Nurses’ Clinical Judgement on Pressure Ulcer Risk? A Mixed-Method Study by Balzer et al. (2014), and it focuses on defining diverse aspects that nurses tend to use when determining risks of pressure ulcers’ occurrence. In this case, the title is descriptive and reflects the main purpose of the article. As for the abstract, it is representative, as it depicts the flow of the research and describes sections such as background, objectives, methodology, and findings.
The introduction is clear and concise since it not only reflects “What is already known about the topic” but also shows the objectives, purpose, and rationale in “What this paper adds” section (Balzer et al., 2014, 704). As for the problem statement, it is described in the background section while unveiling gaps in the previous studies. Thus, it is not presented separately, and it makes it difficult to identify it in the first place. Nonetheless, the research question is concise, and it is reflected at the end of the paragraph. Speaking of the theoretical framework, it is one of the essential parts of any study, and it provides an academic basis to guide the research (Anfara & Mertz, 2014). The authors of the article also consider it important and rely on theories of evaluating risks, professional actions, and triangulation (Balzer et al., 2014).
A literature review is also of paramount importance, as it presents a concise evaluation and summary of previous studies (Aveyard, 2014; Houser, 2016). The analyzed literature is relevant and descriptive. However, it is blended with the theoretical framework and background parts, so, offering it in a separate paragraph will make it more visible.
Furthermore, the study employs a mixed approach, and it is appropriate for this research due to the need to discover not only a correlation between variables but also describe the characteristics. The sample size is sufficient and complies with the applied method while using multiple data collection strategies such as interviews and secondary information about patients, and the evaluation of information quality and knowledge rigor helps ensure validity and reliability of the findings. As for the analysis, relying on descriptive statistics and content analysis are consistent with the purpose of the study and research questions.
The research results are embedded in the text, presented in the form of tables (quantitative) and figures (qualitative), cross-analyzed, and explained. The discussion is also concise, as it compares the findings of the study with the theoretical framework and previous findings. Apart from that, the authors refer to limitations, as they help define the gaps, and they are connected to generalization and bias (Balzer et al., 2014). Lastly, it could be said that the conclusion defines the need for subsequent studies to test the hypothesis while the findings can be actively applied in the sphere of etiology (Balzer et al., 2014).
Level and Quality of Evidence
Apart from writing the well-developed critique of the article, it is also of essential significance to assess the quality of evidence since it helps discover the validity and applicability of the research outcomes in different contexts (Gray, Grove, & Sutherland, 2016). To determine whether the provided evidence complies with the quality standards, it is reasonable to refer to U.S. Preventive Services (2013), as it offers a concise grading system. When evaluating it, it could be said that evidence is good with grade B in suggestions for practice. The primary reason for making this decision is the fact that in the first place, the conclusions are made using a mixed approach while relying on both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Along with that, the researchers are highly focused on the quality of the provided findings with the help of case vignettes, cross-data analysis, and conducting interviews by several researchers (Balzer et al., 2014). Overall, it could be said that studies are well-conducted and designed and present a sufficient framework to define risks of pressure ulcers with the help of triangulation (Balzer et al., 2014). These results can be used to improve the quality of the provided services. Nonetheless, the grade is B (suggestions for practice and net benefit) since this research still requires hypothesis testing and a detailed description of the impact of this intervention on patients’ outcomes.
Applicability of the Study to My Practice
Lastly, it is vital to understand whether I can apply the findings of this study in practice. Apart from the rapid development of technology, pressure ulcers could be considered as one of the major problems among hospitalized patients (Guy, Downle, McIntyre, & Peters, 2013). To address and diminish this problem, the governmental authorities developed a framework that could be used to identify pressure ulcers (Guy et al., 2013). Thus, it tends to have some drawbacks and gaps while the quality of the assessment is still dependent on nurses. In this case, the selected article provides new insights and eases the evaluation process. As for me, I can apply the acquired evidence-based practice. For example, I can use the proposed model and ranking of symptoms to determine the level of the patient’s vulnerability. Overall, it will enhance the quality of the provided services, improve the evaluation process, and minimize the percentage of medical errors.
References
Anfara, V., & Mertz, N. (2014). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Aveyard, H. (2014). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. New York, NY: Open University Press.
Balzer, K., Kremer, L., Junghans, A., Halfens, R., Dassen, T., & Kottner, J. (2014). What patient characteristics guide nurses’ clinical judgement on pressure ulcer risk? A mixed methods study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(1), 703-716.
Gray, J., Grove, S., & Sutherland, S. (2016). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. St. Louis, MI: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Guy, H., Downle, F., McIntyre, L., & Peters, J. (2013). Pressure ulcer prevention: Making a difference across a health authority? British Journal of Nursing, 22(12), 4-13.
Houser, J. (2016). Nursing research: Reading, using and creative evidence. Burlington. MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
U.S. Preventive Services. (2013). Grade definitions.