Critique Of Research Findings

Research critique is the evaluation of the content of the research reports both objectively and critically. It is performed for various purposes such as to assess if a research paper is ready to be published, comment on a research work before its publication, or in some cases, it is an experience for emerging scholars to learn and develop their research skills. In the process of the analysis, a research critique focuses on the elements of the investigation and evaluates the same if it has been carried by the researcher (Clarke & Collier, 2015).  The aim of this essay is to read critically and analyze the two literature articles, a quantitative and qualitative study.  The author will perform a critical analysis of each study. The essay will include the definition and explanation of the term “research critique”. The essay provides a brief summary and analysis of the research design and content of each article. Further, it provides a critical analysis of each research article by the general credibility of the research conclusions, introduction, literature review, and discussion provided in the article. The purpose of the author in performing critical analysis of the two literature article is to learn and develop research skills.

Firstly, let us discuss what a research critique is. It is the evaluation of the content of the research reports both objectively and critically (Creswell, 2014). It includes identification of a problem, looking for specific questions, studying the theoretical and analytical approaches, and review of the research findings and its significance. The summary of the research critique is the author’s personal analysis and evaluation of the research articles. It may not always be the scenario that a research critique includes only flaws or faults in a report; rather it may be predominately positive (Howarth et al, 2016). It is the process of analyzing the weakness and strength of the particular research paper. It looks for specific elements in the study and if it has been carried well by the researcher. It analyses if the research question, examination of the literature review, the hypothesis and variables are taken in the study are clear and if the expectations were successfully met by conducting the study. A critique also identifies any irrelevant information, grammatical errors, presence of redundancy and overall writing style (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). The summary of the two research articles will be discussed in the subsequent sections.

The first article critique which will be summarized is “Barriers to nurses’ adherence to central venous catheter guidelines” by Jeffery & Pickler (2014). The aim of this research study is to identify the barriers to the nursing practice in adhering to the standard of care practices for “central venous catheters (CVCs)." The researcher has used qualitative, descriptive research method, and a phenomenological approach to understanding the respondent's perception of the identified issue. The respondents for this pilot study were nurses of Midwest hospital who care for patients with CVCs. A sample size of 10 registered nurses was selected which included eight female, and two male nurses and all had a two years experience in this field. Audio recorded interview was conducted for nurses with each lasting for 2 hours. Colaizzi’s method was applied for data analysis. The research findings revealed that barrier to adhere to the care practices for CVCs includes nurses' limitation that produces errors.

It was found in the research paper “Barriers to nurses’ adherence to central venous catheter guidelines” of Jeffery & Pickler (2014), that the research aim was clearly stated and investigated. In this study, the researcher has identified that nurses were found unable to adhere to the CVCs guidelines. The study has produced a credible understanding of the research aim by the results obtained from the qualitative study which showed that that nurses' limitation caused noncompliance to CVCs guidelines. The author of this study has provided a consistent link between the research aim, background, discussion and the conclusions. There are no other alternate explanations that can be interpreted from the study results. The introduction provided in this pilot study clearly outlines the increased rate of errors in nursing practice in the management of CVC. This led to rising in death rate in hospitals. Therefore, the researcher aims to understand the factors causing the nurses to deviate from standards of practice in caring for CVCs. The researcher has presented a clear rationale for undertaking this study. This topic is significant for the health care providers in understanding and minimizing the medical errors to improve the clinical outcomes. This qualitative study implies that more research is needed to identify the factors affecting the errors.

In this paper the background information provided by the author in regards to the identified issue is sufficient. The study has reviewed the existence knowledge gap in nursing practice in regards to the nonadherence of CVC guidelines and cognitive pressure experienced by the nurses.  As a qualitative research study the attempt to identify and explain this issue as hospital climate, expectations of physicians, and the instructional methods do appears researchable. The literature review directly relates to the identified problem. The researcher has not only summarized the relevant research findings of the past publications but has also analyzed its strengths and weaknesses. Also, the gaps in the current knowledge and understanding were also highlighted. The researcher has established a clear link between this study and the previous research comes. The author of this study has provided an explicit discussion while examining the results adequately. This study has contributed towards the better understanding of nurse's personal limitation as a factor preventing quality care. These findings have successfully fulfilled the aim of this study and have been found to be consistent with findings of other similar studies. This constitutes the strength of the study. These are also found complementing the existing literature and also have added extra information from the nurses. It has highlighted that the weakness of this study was limited sample size and site. It suggests that guidelines adherence can be stimulated by the organization by adopting electronic health record system and with professionals engaging with informatics team. The study implies for additional research on the experienced nurses to identify barriers and facilitators of the "adherence to safe practice guidelines." These findings provide a rationale for future development of a system to measure the significance of each of these barriers in an organization, for example, understanding the easiest way to adhere to the guidelines.

The second article critique which will be summarized here is "A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial-coated versus nonantimicrobial coated peripherally inserted central catheters on associated outcomes: A randomized controlled trial" by Storey et al., (2016). This study is a result of increased rate of infections caused by CVCs such as “Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs)" The aim of this study is to compare the impact of "chlorhexidine (CHG)-impregnated versus non-CHG peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) on the risk of CLABSI". The research was conducted in the Midwest hospital, and the patients were selected as sample population who were placed with PICC line (with or without CHG-impregnated) in the body. A sample size of 167 was considered for the study in a randomized way. The collected data was analyzed by the statistical method (IBM SPSS Statistics, Shapiro-Wilk test, the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact tests). The research findings revealed that there was a nonsignificant difference between CHG or non-CHG PICC line inserted patients in respected to CLABSI or VTE noted. In the subsequent sections, the critique of both articles will be presented in details. 

It was found in the research paper "A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial-coated versus nonantimicrobial coated peripherally inserted central catheters on associated outcomes: A randomized controlled trial" of Storey et al., (2016), the researcher clearly presents and investigates the research aim. The results were linked to the objectives which reveal that there is no difference in CLABSI, and VTE development in patients with PICC line (with or without CHF impregnated) and these findings provide a clear understanding of the research aim. The author of this study has provided a consistent link between the research aim, background, discussion and the conclusions. The researcher has adequately discussed all the elements of the investigation in a coherent and a consistent manner. It is reflected in the stratified sampling method, inclusion and exclusion strategy applied in the study. There are no other alternate explanations that can be interpreted from the study results.

The introduction provided in this quantitative study clearly outlines the increased rate of complications associated with CVCs resulting in CLABSI and VTE. Therefore, the researcher aims to understand the effect on these infections with the use of PPC lines with or without CHG. This topic is significant for the health care providers in understanding and minimizing the catheter associated infections and improves the patient outcomes. As there is a literature gap in this area, this study implies for more intense research in future and clearly rationalizes the undertaking of the study. The research findings promote the researchers to explore the other causative factors of the catheter associated infections and develop instruments to minimize the same. The background of the study has insufficient information on the problem. The author has not examined the relevant literature related to the subject of the investigation which represents the weakness of the study. It also lacks the objective and critical analysis of the research publications. It fails to provide the integrated review of the strength and weaknesses of the reviewed literature. However, the discussion is directly related to the problem being investigated in the study. The author has highlighted that how this first RCT study is the latest and best investigation. The study has poorly presented the gaps in current knowledge and understanding. The explicit discussion of the research findings contributes to the development of the understanding in the problem area. The results of the study have fulfilled the research aims. Being the first RCT examining the effect of “CHG-impregnated antimicrobial PICC lines versus non-CHG PICC lines on the development of CLABSI or VTE” constitutes the strength of the study. The strength of the study lies in its first RCT study design including diverse patient population and three high-risk units "cardiovascular thoracic, MICU, and oncology". The researcher has also highlighted the weakness of the study in an integrated manner.  In the discussion, the author has not suggested anything as a possibility for the future research. This study has provided a rationale for more research with varying issues in this problem area (Storey et al., 2016).

Based on the research critique it can be concluded that these studies by Storey et al., (2016) and Jeffery & Pickler (2014), are valuable in enhancing the nursing profession in New Zealand. Healthcare organizations can utilize the research findings of these qualitative and quantitative studies to improve the quality of the care provided to the patients. Nurses can work more hard to adhere to the guidelines of CVCs management as it was observed from the first article that nurses are aware of the barriers to implementation of an evidence-based protocol. These studies are promising in minimizing the medical errors. It was observed from the research paper of Taylor et al., (2014) and Worth et al., (2015) that the current practices substantially vary from the "CDC guideline." These results were obtained through a comparative study of "medical and nursing management of CVC” between New Zealand and Australia. Similar data was observed in the paper of Vasudevan et al., (2016), which highlighted an existence in the care provided to the newborn infants associated with CLABSI.

In conclusion, the assignment has enhanced my skills of critically analyzing research papers. The critical analysis of the above-presented research article highlights the current problem in CVCs management. It enhanced with the knowledge of nonadherence to the guidelines by the nurses as well as increased infections due to PPC lines coated with the antimicrobial agent. This provides a rationale for future research in this area with variation overcoming the limitations of these studies. Both the research studies have successfully fulfilled their research aims and objectives helping the health care organizations in implementing a positive change for better care facilities.

Clarke, S., & Collier, S. (2015). Research essentials: How to critique quantitative research. Nursing children and young people, 27(9), 12-12.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

Howarth, D., Glynos, J., & Griggs, S. (2016). Discourse, explanation and critique. Critical Policy Studies, 1-6.

Jeffery, A. D., & Pickler, R. H. (2014). Barriers to nurses’ adherence to central venous catheter guidelines. Journal of Nursing Administration,44(7/8), 429-435.

Storey, S., Brown, J., Foley, A., Newkirk, E., Powers, J., Barger, J., & Paige, K. (2016). A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial coated versus nonantimicrobial coated peripherally inserted central catheters on associated outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. American journal of infection control, 44(6), 636-641.

Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal Power A Review, Critique, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 136-163.

Taylor, J. E., McDonald, S. J., & Tan, K. (2014). A survey of central venous catheter practices in Australian and New Zealand tertiary neonatal units.Australian Critical Care, 27(1), 36-42.

Vasudevan, C., Oddie, S. J., & McGuire, W. (2016). Early removal versus expectant management of central venous catheters in neonates with bloodstream infection. The Cochrane Library.

Worth, L. J., Spelman, T., Bull, A. L., Brett, J. A., & Richards, M. J. (2015). Central line-associated bloodstream infections in Australian intensive care units: Time-trends in infection rates, etiology, and antimicrobial resistance using a comprehensive Victorian surveillance program, 2009-2013. American journal of infection control, 43(8), 848-852.