Research Critique For Critical Analysis Essay.

What is Research Critique

Discuss about the Research Critique for Critical Analysis.

The essay is about critical analysis of two literature articles that support research development. It is done by the adopting the process of research critique. It is a systematic way of reviewing a research article to highlight the strength and weakness of the study and its usefulness in real world practice. It is necessary for professionals to identify the best research that it relevant to current practice and critiquing research helps in evaluating the research finding (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). The purpose of this essay is to critically analyze qualitative and quantitative research articles. It first starts with defining the term research critique and then explains the way this process is carried to determine the usefulness in professional practice. For the critique of each of the two articles, the reviewer first provides the summary of the article and then critiques the compulsory section of the articles according to the relevant framework for qualitative and quantitative research. It also critiques the three optional parts of each article which are the introduction section, the discussion part and the literature review section. After the analysis, the reviewer describes how these findings relate to professional practice Aotearoa/ New Zealand.

The research critique process is the systematic way of reviewing a research study by identifying the gaps and strengths of the study. It may be done for a variety of purpose. Firstly it helps to assess whether a research paper is effective enough to be published. It is a way of guiding any researcher where an expert reviewer can comment on his work and suggest the improvement that can be possible. In other situation, this process acts a learning experience both for the reviewer as well as the researcher (Vance et al., 2013). A person involved in critiquing an article must have critical thinking skill and also in-depth knowledge of the subject to understand the intricacies of the work. A successful critiquing of research will depend on a balanced appraisal. This means reviewer needs to identify both the merits and demerits of the study as well as its applicability in real-world professional practice (Polit & Beck, 2013).  A balanced appraisal can be possible only when reviewer applies his logic and goal in analyzing the systematic method of investigation present in the research article (Silverman, 2013). Thus, it helps in the unbiased way of examination of different elements of research according to different professional context. A reviewer can use different tools or framework to help them critique research articles. The credibility of the research depends on how well the researcher has presented the study. This can be done by raising questions like ‘is the purpose of research clearly identified?’, ‘is the report concise and cohesive?’, ‘is it logically analyzed?’ and other types of question (Mertens, 2014). 

Process of Research Critique

The first qualitative research article by Jeffery & Pickler, (2014) investigated nurses perceived barrier to adherence of Central Venous Catheter (CVC) care practices. The study was done by the descriptive phenomenological method by taking an interview with ten nurses and analyzing the data using Colaizzi’s method. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the factors that lead to non-adherence of CVC guideline in nurses. The data from the interview was divided into different themes, and the result showed the inaction by organization and attitude of the nurse as a barrier in following CVC guideline. 

On analysis of first article (compulsory section), it is seen that researcher has chosen the accurate method for investigating the topic. The phenomenological pilot study was credible because the researcher used strategic inclusion and exclusion criteria to inquire into the matter. The accuracy of the data was also maintained by analyzing it using the Colaizzi method. The link between research aim and results is consistent as the results showed that barrier is present both within the health care environment as well as within nurse’s cognitive skill too (Jeffery & Pickler, 2014). One surprising finding was that nurses did not entirely blame it on the organization, they realize that they also lack the skill too. Thus, a coherent account of the topic was accurately presented by the researcher. A survey study by Jansson et al., (2013) on the same topic showed that experience nurses adhere more to guideline than the less experienced nurses. Therefore, the recommendation of the above article matched the survey study by stating that nurses should be properly educated and updated about CVC guideline to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia.

The introduction section of the first article initiates with the report of patients dying in hospitals due to different types of medical errors. The researcher has rightly started the topic by stating the problem and making everyone understand the reason for which this study is important. The rationale for the research became evident by emphasizing the role of the nurse in error education. It clearly highlighted what has so far been done to reduce error, but also stated that minimum investigation had been done to find the barriers that discourage nurse from accepted the standard of practice guideline (Jeffery & Pickler, 2014). Thus, the significance of the study became apparent after reading the introduction part. Research by Ullman et al., (2014) also explains in the introduction part that evidence-based guideline on catheter-related bloodstream infection is present, it is known how widely it is practiced.

Qualitative Research Article Critique

The researcher has thoroughly reviewed relevant literature related to the topic which outlined the current knowledge of the topic. While some article documented the gap in knowledge of nursing practice, others suggested the lack of resources as a barrier in the following guideline (Jeffery & Pickler, 2014).  However, one major limitation of the research is that has presented the stepwise summary of each literature, but the critical review is missing as the gap and strengths of each literature has not been identified by the researcher. The article in the barrier to nurse use of clinical practice guideline is an example of integrated review where relevant literature has been critically appraised by using CASP (Critical Skill Appraisal Program) tools (Jun et al., 2016).

On critical analysis of discussion section of the first article, it was found that the research led to the development of knowledge in the area of investigation. One can interpret this by the fact that the barrier was present both internally within the nurse as well as the organization. The researcher also reported that their result matched with other existing literature in the area of time demands, documentation and resource availability in the clinical setting (Jeffery & Pickler, 2014). However, weakness and strengths of the study have not been mentioned which is a major drawback of the study. Similar research by Howarth et al., (2016) is an example which states gap identification is also a crucial element of research as it helps to determine the future scope of the finding in professional practice.

The second article is a quantitative article on the topic of comparative evaluation of antimicrobial-coated and non-antimicrobial coated peripherally inserted the central catheter (PICC) on patient outcome. Storey et al., (2016) investigated on this topic by the process of the randomized controlled trail. Patients in 3 high risks were randomly assigned to use Chlorhexidine (CHG) impregnated or non-CHG PICC line. The laboratory data was collected and reviewed daily to determine the presence of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). The assessment was completed on 167 patients, and the result showed that no significant differences were noted in the development of infection between CHG and non-CHG groups.

The quantitative article on comparative evaluation of the impact of CHG-impregnated and non-CHG impregnated PICC line is a comprehensive work by the author in which information flows in a coherent manner. Data was accurately collected without diverting away from the purpose of research. The insertion time of both types of PICC was noted, and assessment of infection was done daily. The randomized controlled trial study separately examined the impact of both types of PICC lines. It is a constructive research where limitation and weakness of finding have been specified explicitly. Detailed data on types of infection has been provided and its served the purpose of research by stating that CHG or non-CHG PICC line do not have to show any difference in the development of CLABSI or VTE (Storey et al., 2016). It also provided the scope of finding by stating that study with the larger sample is needed to validate the findings. The usefulness of this study is evident from the fact that another research on the same topic by Mikolajczak et al., (2016) showed that more action is required in the correct application of PICC line rather than coating it with antimicrobials.

Quantitative Research Article Critique

The researcher has proved his efficacy by the presentation of detailed introduction on the topic of PICC and the purpose for which investigation in this area is critical. The problem or issue faced in the hospital setting has been articulated well by the researcher by the stating that CLABSI or VTE infection is a significant burden and cost to the health care system. It showed the significant of this research by highlighting that CHG-impregnated PICC line reduced the infection rate, but the researcher has not examined its impact on infection (Storey et al., 2016). A quantitative article on the similar topic by Armstrong et al., (2013) introduced the study by clearly stating that PICC use in burn patients has the risk of serious bloodstream infection. Thus relevant to their scope of the study, the researcher studied the impact of PICC on bacteremia rate in the burn center.

Any researcher mostly reviews the literature to investigate which area has been already researched on the topic and which part has been neglected. For the research article on PICC line, the author has not developed the literature on the direct topic but on the techniques adopted to prevent CLABSIs (Storey et al., 2016). However, the reason for this was clearly stated in the end by expressing that there is the lack of research on the impact of PICC on CLABSI or VTE development. Therefore, literature review section mainly provided detail on insertion techniques and management of PICC lines. Jock et al., (2016) also suggested that goal of reaching zero infection is possible by the implementation of change in practice as well bringing new products in the central line.

The discussion part of the article on impact CHG impregnated PICC line fulfills the purpose of research by stating that development of CLABSI or VTE does not depend on the type of PICC line. The researcher is aware of the correct protocol of research as it shows that the strengths of the study lie in its study design. This type of assessment of the impact of PICC line has never been done before. The researcher has also highlighted the limitation of the study by stating that there might be inconsistency in statistical data due to small sample size and data collection from a single institution (Storey et al., 2016). The research finding was also compared with other studies and according to that differences were found in the data. In some study, the impact was investigated on the antibiotic combination of PICC with Minocycline and Rifampin instead of CHG (Yousif et al., 2016).

Relation to Professional Practice Aotearoa/New Zealand

The quantitative and qualitative article on management of CVC by nurses will be useful for bringing change in nursing practice in New Zealand. The research finding will be useful because many death also occurs in New Zealand healthcare setting due to the bloodstream infection. A similar type of research is also done in New Zealand by Restieaux et al., (2013) who described the current approach to preventing extravasations injury or blood stream infection in the neonatal intensive care unit. A survey on central venous catheter practices in New Zealand by McDonald et al., (2014) suggests that there is diversity in current guidelines for the use of PICC. There it highlighted the fact that the introduction of a common guideline may improve adherence to CVC care practice in nurses. Another research by Ullman et al., (2014) studied the extent to which New Zealand intensive care units have adopted CLABSI prevention practices.

 Thus, from critiques research on quantitative and qualitative research article, the problem of blood stream infection due to the use of CVC in intensive care unit came to the forefront. The critical analysis of both the literature helped to find important data regarding the reasons due to which infection develops in the patient. It also highlighted the fact that many nurses do not adhere to the CVC guidelines because of inaction by the health care organization and their lack of cognitive skills. The evaluation of PICC line gave important information that infection does not depend on types of PICC used. Thus infection has linked the management of PICC lines and in future, the hospitals should work in this area to train nurse on the management of PICC line. The essay also gave validity of research finding in nursing practice in New Zealand with support from the similar study done in New Zealand.

Reference

Armstrong, S. D., Thomas, W., Neaman, K. C., Ford, R. D., & Paulson, J. (2013). The impact of antibiotic impregnated PICC lines on the incidence of bacteremia in a regional burn center. Burns, 39(4), 632-635. 

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

Jansson, M., Ala-Kokko, T., Ylipalosaari, P., Syrjälä, H., & Kyngäs, H. (2013). Critical care nurses’ knowledge of, adherence to and barriers towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia–A survey study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 29(4), 216-227.

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.

Jock, L., Emery, L., Jameson, L., & Woods, P. A. (2016). Journey to Zero Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: An Intensive Care Unit's Story of Sustained Success and Quality Improvement. Journal of the Association for Vascular Access, 21(2), 76-80.

Jun, J., Kovner, C. T., & Stimpfel, A. W. (2016). Barriers and facilitators of nurses’ use of clinical practice guidelines: An integrative review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 60, 54-68.

McDonald, S. J., Taylor, J. E., & 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.

Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Sage publications.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2013). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Restieaux, M., Maw, A., Broadbent, R., Jackson, P., Barker, D., & Wheeler, B. (2013). Neonatal extravasation injury: prevention and management in Australia and New Zealand-a survey of current practice. BMC pediatrics,13(1), 1.

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. SAGE Publications Limited.

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.

Ullman, A. J., Long, D. A., & Rickard, C. M. (2014). Prevention of central venous catheter infections: A survey of paediatric ICU nurses' knowledge and practice. Nurse education today, 34(2), 202-207.

Vance, D. E., Talley, M., Azuero, A., Pearce, P. F., & Christian, B. J. (2013). Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers. Nursing: Research and Reviews, 3, 67-75.

Yousif, A., Chaftari, A. M., Michael, M., Jordan, M., Al Hamal, Z., Hussain, A., ... & Raad, I. (2016). The influence of using antibiotic-coated peripherally inserted central catheters on decreasing the risk of central line-associated bloodstream infections. American journal of infection control.