This paper is a research critique on the article, Prevalence of skin tears in a long-term care facility, by LeBlanc, Christensen, Cook, Culhane, and Gutierrez. The article is a quantitative research, which was conducted to investigate the prevalence rate of skin tears amongst residents in a long-term care facility setting. The critique will use questions prepared in advance to assess the article.
Provide an overview of the author’s research problem, research questions and main point including how the author supports his or her point.
The study sought to investigate the prevalence rate of skin tears amongst persons in a long-term care facility setting (LeBlanc, Christensen, Cook, Culhane, & Gutierrez, 2013). The study also investigated the body parts, which are susceptible to the ailment as well as the condition’s predisposing factors. The research question was founded on the existing literature and findings from previous researches on the same topic. In a bid to support the research, the authors cited results of a 1994 research, which was conducted in a 347-bed facility and it revealed a 41.5% skin-tear prevalence rate within the target population (Fleck, 2007). Skin tears are more common among the elderly groups as compared to the young people (Roberts, 2007).
Explain what the author initial objectives (hypothesis) and results including the process he or she used to arrive at such conclusion.
The study was meant to validate the existent theories on the prevalence rates of skin tear conditions that exist in the current literature. The authors adopted a quantitative study design to gather the required data. Each participant was assessed for the condition and information regarding location and the number of skin tears recorded. Data collection process took a period of one day in a 6-hour session (LeBlanc et al., 2013). Collection of the data was done under the watch of two nurses. One of the nurses was from the health facility and the other one was an experienced enterostomal therapist. The results of the study revealed that out of the 113 participants, 25 of them suffered from the condition.
Does the author provide a literature review?
The authors did not provide a literature review in the article. However, they compared the results of the research with findings from previous researches on the same topic.
Is the research current and relevant to today existing health issues?
The research is current and the topic of the research is an important one in the medical practice since it recommends ways on how to control the condition of skin tears through early detection and treatment. Research indicates that skin tears result in complications if not detected and treated in time (Fleck, 2007). In addition, research indicates that certain special groups such as the elderly and the critically ill patients are at a higher risk of getting skin tears as compared to other groups like youths. However, previous researchers have overlooked the importance of investigating the prevalence rates amongst the old populations, which are at higher risks of being affected by the condition. Therefore, this research can be said to be relevant to the current health issues since it provides novel ideas on the issue coupled with suggesting ways of preventing the condition.
Describe the research type utilized– experimental, non-experimental, quasi-experimental, etc.
This study used a non-experimental research method. Non-experimental research refers to a study in which the researcher has no control over the variables (LeBlanc & Baranoski, 2011). In this type of research, there is no control and the sample is not divided into two like in experimental studies where the sample is divided into two with one group representing the experimental group and the other representing the placebo group. Results from this kind of research exhibit a high level of external validity, thus facilitating generalization (Roberts, 2007). From the above description, it can be concluded that a non-experimental approach was adopted in this research. The study does not divide the sample and no control is evident. The results of this research were to be generalized and the method was thus suitable since it would ensure high levels of external validity. Additionally, in such cases, researchers are not in a position to manipulate the variables.
Evaluate the sample (size, composition, or in the way the sample was selected in relation to the purpose of the study?) was the sample appropriate for the research or was it bias?
The sample entailed 113 patients drawn from a 114-bed LTC facility situated in Canada (LeBlanc et al., 2013). All the participants were required to provide their consent, either personally or by proxy before being recruited into the study. All the patients in the facility were eligible for the study, thus eliminating bias. The sample was selected fairly even though it was too small to give the desired results for generalization purposes. Additionally, the sample was drawn from a single LTC facility, and thus it would not represent the targeted population. The sample would be more reliable if it were to be selected from several facilities located in different locations or countries. All the participants were educated on the purpose of the study and informed of what to expect from it before they were asked to provide their consent. The participants were aged between 36 and 107 and they came from both genders (LeBlanc et al., 2013). However, female participants outnumbered their male counterparts in the study, as women were 82 out of the 113 participants. The facility from which the sample was taken is a unit of 30 other facilities in the country, and thus the sample was unbiased. The choice to pick participants from a facility with other branches is an informed one since it would represent the actual conditions in all other branches.
How practical does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest research results could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
This work seems practical since it explores a practical problem affecting most health centers all over the world. Research into the issue of skin tear is important since previous researchers have overlooked it in their investigations even though it is of great significance to the affected groups. The research explains ways in which cases of skin care could be reduced coupled with imparting knowledge to healthcare providers. The authors explain that early detection and treatment of the condition are key aspects in averting complications that come from skin tears in the long term. The practicality of the study can also be seen from how the research was conducted. The sample was drawn from a healthcare facility and out of the 113 participants, 25 participants showed signs of skin tears, which is a clear indication that the issue is important in the nursing practice.
Could the study have been improved in your opinion? If so, provide how you think it could have improved.
The study took place in just a single facility in Canada. The sample size was too small to represent the target population. In my opinion, the study would produce practical results if a larger sample were to be used as compared to the current small sample size. A larger sample size would allow generalization of the results. Additionally, the study would be improved through recruiting the sample from a number of facilities spread across the world in a bid to obtain generalized results.
Is the writing in the article clear and straightforward?
The authors present their ideas in a clear and straightforward manner throughout the article. The ideas are well interwoven and the flow is unquestionably smooth. The authors start by explaining the technical terms in a bid to give the reader an easy time when going through the article. Additionally, the authors divide the article into parts for simplicity and easy following. The authors start with an explanation of the nature of the problem investigated before analyzing findings by previous scholars to give novel information to the readers. The authors give a summary of the major themes before presenting the actual research.
Can further research be conducted on this subject? Explain
The findings from this research can be used as a basis for conducting future research on the topic. Future research should include a large sample recruited from different hospitals in disparate locations. The sample size in this study was too small and thus it could not provide reliable results. For example, the sample did not provide evidence to support the contribution of cognitive function and aggressive behaviors in skin tears. Therefore, future research should aim at proving the results from this study and using a reasonably large sample in a bid to fill the notable gaps.
Conclusion
The study investigated the prevalence rate of skin tears amongst the elderly in a long-term care facility. The study assessed 113 patients and out of the sample, 25 had skin tears. The findings of this study are consistent with the findings from other researches on the same topic. The study affirms the existing literature concerning the skin tears amongst the elderly, as they are more prone to the condition as compared to other groups in society. However, the study is limited by the small sample size used. Nevertheless, the research can be used as the basis for future research. Future research should include a large sample obtained from a number of hospitals across different countries or locations depending on the objectives of the study.
References
Fleck, C. (2007). Preventing and treating skin tears. Advances in skin & wound care, 20(6), 315-321.
LeBlanc, K., & Baranoski, S. (2011). Skin tears: state of the science: consensus statements for the prevention, prediction, assessment, and treatment of skin tears. Advances in skin & wound care, 24(9), 2-15.
LeBlanc, K., Christensen, D., Cook, J., Culhane, B., & Gutierrez, O. (2013). Prevalence of skin tears in a long-term care facility. Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 40(6), 580-584.
Roberts, M. (2007). Preventing and managing skin tears: a review. Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing, 34(3), 256-259.