[email protected]

New Order

Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

The selected nursing practice issue addressed in this project is the high rate of pressure ulcers (PU) in inpatient units. Studies show that the prevalence of PU has increased dramatically, especially among bed-ridden patients in various departments, including the intensive care unit (ICU), surgical units, medical unit, and medical-surgical departments. The high rate of PU in the affected departments is associated with limited mobility among patients receiving healthcare services in these units. According to Al Mutair et al. (2020), pressure ulcers (PUs) result in adverse health outcomes, including a high morbidity rate among hospitalized patients. Consequently, the prevalence of PU has increased to 4% – 49% globally (Al Mutair et al., 2020)Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper. Additionally, the high incidence of PU results in longer hospital stays and a high cost of care.  PU is more than physical complications; hence requires intensive treatment, imposing a huge financial burden on individual patients and health care facilities. Thus, preventive measures should be adopted to lower the high incidence of PU in inpatient units. This paper criticizes quantitative and qualitative studies on PU preventive interventions.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

PICOT Question and Relevance to the Topic

            The proposed PICOT question states; “For elderly patients in the medical-surgical unit who are at a high risk of developing pressure ulcers (P), does the implementation of a skin bundle compared to turning and positioning only (I) more effective compared to usual care (C) and reduce the rates of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (O) within two weeks of hospitalization?”

Combined Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

Background of Studies

            Two qualitative studies on pressure ulcers were analyzed in this project. The first study was conducted by Saleh et al. (2019) conducted an observational study on PU prevention to assess knowledge about pressure ulcers and the underutilization of PU care in Jordan. It indicated that increasing nurses’ knowledge regarding PU would improve PU prevention and care, reducing patient suffering. Secondly, Lotfi et al. (2019) conducted a descriptive cross‐sectional study to evaluate nurses’ knowledge, behavior, and attitude in preventing pressure injuries. Study findings indicated that improving nurses’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior through training positively impacts pressure treatment. Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

Additionally, quantitative studies were reviewed to gather data on PU prevention. The first study was conducted by Tayyib et al. (2021) to evaluate the effectiveness of the SKINCARE bundle in preventing medical-device-related pressure injuries in critical care units. The bundle includes skin assessment, cleaning, and moisturizing. The study findings indicated that the bundle effectively prevents medical-device-related pressure injuries. The second study was conducted by Mao & Zhu (2021) to evaluate the effects of pressure ulcer prevention among patients. The study findings indicated that the pressure ulcer prevention bundle effectively prevents pressure ulcers than routine care.

The four studies are similar in the problem since all were triggered by a dramatic increase in pressure ulcer prevalence in various clinical settings. Secondly, all the studies are significant to nursing practice since they have proposed interventions for preventing PU in clinical settings. However, the qualitative articles and quantitative articles differ in terms of purpose, objective, and research question. Qualitative articles aimed at assessing knowledge concerning the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers. Thus, qualitative studies do not relate to the proposed PICOT question. On the other hand, quantitative articles aimed at assessing the effectiveness of different interventions in preventing PU. Hence, the quantitative studies relate to the PICOT question, which compares the effectiveness of skin bundle compared to turning and positioning in preventing pressure ulcers. However, all four articles present to the reader subjective information about the topic idea since they have focused on PU knowledge and prevention.

Support for Nursing Practice and the PICO question

The proposed PICOT question states, “Among elderly patients in the medical-surgical unit who are at a high risk of developing pressure ulcers (P), does the use of routine repositioning and pressure distribution devices (I) more effective compared to usual care (C) in reducing the rates of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (O) within two weeks of hospitalization?” Saleh et al. (2019) assessed knowledge concerning preventing and treating pressure ulcers among Jordan nurses. Secondly, Lotfi et al. (2019) assessed the knowledge, behavior, and attitude of nurses on taking care of the skin, preventing, and managing pressure injury. Therefore, the PICOT question is not supported by the selected qualitative studies.

On the contrary, the selected quantitative studies support the PICOT question. Tayyib et al.’s (2021) study findings indicate the effectiveness of the SKINCARE bundle in preventing medical-device-related pressure injuries among critically ill patients. Thus, this study supports the PICOT question. Additionally, Mao and Zhu’s (2021) findings indicated that care bundles effectively reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Therefore, the study would help in answering the proposed PICOT question by indicating the effectiveness of care bundles in improving PU among inpatients.

The selected qualitative studies have no defined intervention and comparison groups. On the contrary, quantitative studies have clearly defined intervention and comparison groups. Tayyib et al.’s (2021) intervention group was the SKINCARE bundle, while normal care was the comparison group. Thus, the intervention group in this article (Skincare bundle) is similar to the PICOT question (Skincare). However, the comparison group in this article (Normal care) is different from the comparison group (Turning and positioning). Secondly, the intervention group in Mao & Zhu (2021) is the pressure ulcer prevention bundle, which is similar to the PICOT question. On the contrary, the comparison group in this article is routine care, which is different from the PICOT question. Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

Method of Studies

            Saleh et al. (2019) and Lotfi et al. (2019) utilized qualitative methodology to collect data in their studies. However, Saleh et al. (2019) used a prospective 8-h observation to collect data from the participants. A prospective 8-h observation requires little time to collect data from the participants. However, the researchers will likely leave out essential details when data is collected via observation. On the other hand, Lotfi et al. (2019) used a self-reported cross-sectional survey to collect data. These data collection techniques have benefits and limitations. Using a cross-sectional survey in data collection consumes less time. However, this data collection methodology requires a large sample size to collect usable data.

ORDER HERE

On the other hand, Tayyib et al. (2021) and Mao and Zhu (2021) utilized a quantitative data collection methodology. Nonetheless, these articles differ in data collection procedures. Tayyib et al. (2021) conducted a prospective clinical trial involving patients in the ICU who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. A prospective clinical trial has benefits and limitations. This study methodology involves experimentation, thus giving credible results. However, it limits the generalizability of the study findings due to the difference between the study’s participants and the general population. Additionally, Mao and Zhu (2021) conducted a randomized clinical trial to assess the effects of pressure-ulcer prevention bundles. This methodology gives credible results since it involves a comparison of intervention and comparison of intervention and control groups. However, it is time-consuming since a long duration is needed to obtain the desired results.

Results of Studies

Saleh et al. (2019) conducted a study to evaluate knowledge concerning preventing and treating pressure ulcers among nurses. The presented evidence indicated that training programs equip nurses with adequate knowledge of PU, improving the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers in clinical practice. Lotfi et al. (2019) conducted a study to assess the knowledge, behavior, and attitude of nurses on taking care of the skin, preventing, and managing pressure injury. The presented evidence indicated that holding practical workshops improves nurses’ knowledge, behavior, and attitude towards PU, enhancing pressure injury prevention and improving patient safety. Therefore, clinical practices should train their nurses to improve their knowledge, behavior, and attitude towards PU.

On the other hand, Mao & Zhu (2021) reported that care bundles improve self-care efficacy among patients with pressure ulcers. Additionally, Tayyib et al. (2021) indicated that the SKINCARE bundle effectively prevented medical-device-related pressure injuries among patients receiving healthcare care in critical care units. Thus, skin care bundles are an effective intervention for preventing pressure ulcers among patients hospitalized in various units. Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

Ethical Considerations

            Ethical considerations in research aimed at protecting the participants from any potential harm. In the selected articles, the authors adhered to ethical considerations in their research. First, they considered the ethical principles of informed consent and voluntary participation. The researchers disclosed all relevant information concerning the studies to the targeted respondents and allowed them to decide if they will participate in the studies. Additionally, the participants were free to quit before the studies were completed.

Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change

The proposed PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem are interrelated. The nursing practice problem of concern is the high rate of PU in the inpatient units. The proposed PICOT question focuses on addressing this issue by comparing the effectiveness of the skin care bundle and turning and positioning in preventing PU among elderly patients receiving treatment in the inpatient unit. Lastly, the research articles present evidence, indicating the effectiveness of the skincare bundle in preventing PU among patients hospitalized in various departments. Thus, clinical settings should adopt the skincare bundle as an evidence-based practice change for preventing pressure ulcers among patients hospitalized in various units.

Outcomes Comparison/Conclusion

The proposed PICOT question anticipated the effectiveness of skin care in preventing pressure ulcers among elderly patients. Additionally, Mao & Zhu (2021) reported that care bundles improve self-care efficacy among patients with pressure ulcers. Tayyib et al. (2021) also indicated that the SKINCARE bundle effectively prevented medical-device-related pressure injuries among patients receiving healthcare care in critical care units. Thus, the skin care bundle is an effective intervention for preventing pressure ulcers among patients hospitalized in various units. Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

 

References

Al Mutair, A., Ambani, Z., Al Obaidan, F., Al Salman, K., Alhassan, H., & Al Mutairi, A. (2020). The effectiveness of pressure ulcer prevention programme: A comparative study. International Wound Journal, 17(1), 214-219. Doi: 10.1111/iwj.13259.

Lotfi, M., Aghazadeh, A. M., Asgarpour, H., & Nobakht, A. (2019). Iranian nurses’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior on skin care, prevention, and management of pressure injury: A descriptive cross‐sectional study. Nursing Open, 6(4), 1600-1605. Doi: 10.1002/nop2.365

Mao, X., & Zhu, L. (2021). Effects of care bundles for patients with pressure ulcers and the impact on self-care efficacy. American journal of translational research, 13(3), 1799–1807. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8014366/

Saleh, M. Y., Papanikolaou, P., Nassar, O. S., Shahin, A., & Anthony, D. (2019). An observational study of nurses’ knowledge and practice of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. Journal of tissue viability, 28(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2019.10.005

Tayyib, N., Asiri, M. Y., Danic, S., Sahi, S. L., Lasafin, J., Generale, L. F., Malubay, A., Viloria, P., Palmere, M. G., Parbo, A. R., Aguilar, K. E., Licuanan, P. M., & Reyes, M. (2021). The Effectiveness of the SKINCARE Bundle in Preventing Medical-Device Related Pressure Injuries in Critical Care Units: A Clinical Trial. Advances in skin & wound care, 34(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000725184.13678.80 Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

Research Critiques and PICOT Question Guidelines –

Final Draft

Qualitative and Quantitative Studies

Introduction

  1. Introduce your nursing practice problem and discuss the purpose of your paper.
  2. State your updated PICOT question incorporating any feedback that you received from your instructor.

Background of Studies

  1. Summary of studies including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions.

How Do These Four Articles Support the Nursing Practice Problem You Chose?

  1. Discuss how the four articles will be used to answer your PICOT question.
  2. Describe how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in your PICOT question.

Method of Studies:

  1. State the methods of the four articles you are comparing and describe how they are different.
  2. State one benefit and one limitation of each method you have identified.

Results of Studies:

  1. Summarize the key findings of each of the studies into a comprehensive summary.
  2. What are the implications of the four studies you chose in nursing practice?

Ethical Considerations

  1. Discuss two ethical considerations in conducting research.
  2. Describe how the researchers in the four articles you choose took these ethical considerations into account while performing their research. Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper

Outcomes Comparison

  1. What are the anticipated outcomes for your PICOT question?
  2. How do the outcomes of the four articles you chose compare to your anticipated outcomes?

Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change

  1. What is the link between the PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem you identified?
  2. Based on this information, propose an evidence-based practice change for your identified setting.

Conclusion

  1. Your conclusion should summarize the main points in the essay, including a varied restatement of the thesis.

Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Introduction
1. Introduce your nursing practice problem and discuss the purpose of your paper.
2. State your updated PICOT question incorporating any feedback that you received from your instructor.
Background of Studies
1. Summary of studies including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions.
How Do These Four Articles Support the Nursing Practice Problem You Chose?
1. Discuss how the four articles will be used to answer your PICOT question.
2. Describe how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in your PICOT question.

ORDER TODAY

Method of Studies:
1. State the methods of the four articles you are comparing and describe how they are different.
2. State one benefit and one limitation of each method you have identified.
Results of Studies:
1. Summarize the key findings of each of the studies into a comprehensive summary.
2. What are the implications of the four studies you chose in nursing practice?
Ethical Considerations
1. Discuss two ethical considerations in conducting research.
2. Describe how the researchers in the four articles you choose took these ethical considerations into account while performing their research.
Outcomes Comparison
1. What are the anticipated outcomes for your PICOT question?
2. How do the outcomes of the four articles you chose compare to your anticipated outcomes? Qualitative And Quantitative Studies Research Paper