Research problem and significance
Order Instructions:
PLEASE NOTE We need to use the second article, Rehods one.
HNB3123 Working with Evidence 2017
Assessment 2-Essay- journal critique
Number of words: 1200
This is an academic essay. You are required to conduct a critical appraisal of a primary research paper. Two papers are provided and you choose one (either quantitative or qualitative).
You should follow the format of an academic essay and use well-structured headings (for example, as you see in a journal article). Headings are signposts and give clarity to writing.
We suggest the critical appraisal has headings for the following areas:
1. Introduction
2. The research problem and its significance
3. The research design and the methods.
4. Findings and their relevance to contemporary nursing policy and practice
5. Conclusion
It is important you refresh your learning about academic essay writing and refer to the marking guide (assessment rubric). A range of resources to assist with Assessment 2 have been provided in VU collaborate. This includes information about how to write critically, how to write an introduction and conclusion. The following links are very useful.
Help is available at this link. If you would like more help with your academic writing, visit the Writing Space and chat to Student Writing Mentors about your assignment.
The critical appraisal will be marked on the following areas:
• Introduction
• Grammar, spelling and punctuation
• Sentence, paragraph structure & APA format
• Sequence and organisation of answer
• Closing paragraph / conclusion
• The research problem and its significance
• The research design and the methods.
• Findings and their relevance to contemporary nursing policy and practice
• Critical analysis.
• Sources and referencing
• Conclusion
Read the marking criteria when planning and writing the critical appraisal
There should be evidence of critical analysis of the research not just a gathering of information.
Select one of these original research articles to address the questions:
Ma, C., & Park, S. H. (2015). Hospital Magnet status, unit work environment, and pressure ulcers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47(6), 565-573.
OR
Rhodes, P., McDonald, R., Campbell, S., Daker?White, G., & Sanders, C. (2016). Sensemaking and the co?production of safety: a qualitative study of primary medical care patients. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(2), 270-285.
Students are referred to relevant Victoria University assessment policies. Especially note the VU policy regarding criteria for special consideration and the documents you need to provide to support your application for an extension. Inquiries about his process to the unit of study Coordinator only before the due date. Requests after the due date will not be processed.
Students should take account the following requirements:
Essays submitted after 5 days will not be accepted or marked.
Every essay is checked for plagiarism. Make and keep a full copy of all work submitted for assessment.
This is an academic essay so dot points will not be accepted -i.e. use sentences.
The essay should be written and presented in a
- scholarly manner
- Double-space
- Include a title page with your name.
- Include accurate and systematic in-text referencing and a bibliography using APA Referencing: The essay should have a Reference List that includes at least 6 references:
• At least one research textbook;
• At least five journal articles published between 2011-2017.
Students are referred to relevant Victoria University assessment policies.
See also relevant VU policy regarding criteria for special consideration and the documents you need to provide to support your application for an extension. Inquiries about his process to the subject Coordinator only before the due date.
The word limit for the critical appraisal is 1200 words. There will be a 5% deduction for every 10% above or below the word limit
There are serious penalties for late submission and word limit infractions-Refer to University policies on submission guidelines. Essays submitted after 5 days will not be accepted or marked. Make and keep a full copy of all work submitted for assessment.
SAMPLE ANSWER
Introduction
The safety of patients in primary health care setting has mostly been explored in the context of eliminating medical error. This often leaves out important factors that patients find pertinent to their safety as established in the article “Sensemaking and the co-production of safety: a qualitative study of primary medical care patients” by Rhodes et al. (2016). The research by Rhodes et al. (2016) explores how primary care patients make sense of safety and co-produce safety, concluding that there is need for a broad conceptualisation of patient safety, in order to address patients’ concern on safety in primary care settings. This essay is a critical analysis of the article by Rhodes et al. (2016) to evaluate its research problem and significance, methodology used, findings and their significance in contemporary nursing policy and practice.
Research problem and significance
The research problem as presented by Rhodes et al. (2016) is the safety of patients, with specific interest in the manner in which patients perceive and define safety, and how they make sense of their experiences in primary care settings. The patient perspective of safety presents a contemporary issue that is of considerable medical research interest, having been previously studied by among others Rhodes, et al. (2014), Baran et al (2011), Ricci-Cabello et al. (2016) and Daker-White, et al. (2015). All these studies seek to understand patients’ understanding of safety and how it can inform the medical profession, given that a majority of previous studies mostly focused on medical safety. Based on this, it can be established that Rhodes et al. (2016) take on an important research problem that is bound to provide viable solutions in patient safety.
The significance of the article by Rhodes et al. (2016) is that it addresses an important aspect of medical care (safety) and introduces the relevance of sensemaking in understanding the perception of patients on safety. Authors have justified the significance of their study as it helps in the identification of factors that influence patients’ sense of security, such that this can be addressed to ensure quality services are provided in healthcare settings. This resonates well with the research by Rhodes, Campbell and Sanders (2016), which establishes that patients envision safety in completely different ways than what has been documented. Daker-White et al. (2015) in their research offer similar sentiments but also discuss factors related to the patient including attendance errors, misjudgments, memory limitations, emotional factors and patient preferences that may impact on patient safety.
Research design and methods
This research utilizes the qualitative design in determining the sensemaking and safety co-production. Qualitative research denotes a design in which researchers aim at understanding phenomena by interacting with the population’s views and lived experiences (Yin, 2013). In obtaining data for the research, the interview method was utilized for the study. This was done through interviews among selected respondents, mostly in their homes. Quimby (2012) notes that interviews are effective in the collection of data because they allow the researcher to obtain more complete and authentic data.
The researchers make deliberate attempts at improving the reliability and validity of their research. Being a human subject research, it is commendable that the researchers sought ethical approval before beginning their research (Yin, 2013). An important aspect in conducting research is avoiding bias by ensuring that the study sample selected is representative of the population (Quimby, 2012). The researchers endeavored to ensure maximum variability in terms of age, career status, education level, socioeconomic level, and ethnic background. The study also included a wide age consideration, with respondents being aged between 18 and 78 years. However, it is notable that the method used in selecting the sample may not have been appropriate in ensuring equal representation. Being a form of purposive sampling, maximum variation sampling may lead to bias because it selects respondents based on the researcher’s convenience, which in this case led to a deliberate over-sampling of patients with long-term conditions. Snowballing may give rise to bias, given that the recruitment of respondents is based on referrals from the first batch of respondents (Yin, 2013). Despite attempting to show demographic variability, the authors do not break down the composition of the sample.
The data collected was analyzed using a qualitative data analysis software (NVivo10). The analysis involved thematic and iterative techniques, targeted at generating open codes. Some initial themes were identified through a coding system, and these were later distilled into three core themes. For sensemaking purposes, the data was reanalyzed using Weick’s framework.
Findings and their relevance to contemporary nursing policy and practice
The findings of this study are presented under three broad areas. The first is Sensemaking and the articulation of safety, whereby the authors discuss patient responses on their understanding of medical safety. The authors note that most respondents closely associate safety with the quality of care received and professionalism of the care provider. Further, participants reported the importance of both psychosocial and physical aspects of safety in primary care (Rhodes, Campbell & Sanders, 2016). These aspects of safety emerge in other studies such as Rhodes, Campbell and Sanders (2016) and Ulrich and Kear (2014).
The second area is sensemaking from experience: reflecting on safety and practice, where narration by patients identified the specific situations which made them feel unsafe including practitioner attitudes, doctor interpersonal skills, technical competence and the possibility of getting the same medical personnel for consecutive consultations. Results from Rhodes, et al. (2014) also indicate similar safety issues, where patient–doctor continuity is considered important in promoting patient safety. Ricci-Cabello et al. (2016) also identifies health professional behavior and attitudes and physical environment as factors influencing safety.
The third area is Proactive patients and the co-production of safety, where results indicated that patients can contribute to their own safety through proactive measures such as using their knowledge and previous experiences to safeguard against risk. Through understanding their conditions, obtaining information on treatment options, challenging practitioner procedures or decisions, patients were able to avoid risk. The study by Mehra (2015) alludes to this, based on its findings that information-seeking behavior among patients can play a vital role in promoting quality of health care.
The findings of this research have various implications for the nursing practice. The nursing practice needs to open up to the possibilities of more safety dimensions affecting patients such as physical, architectural, psychological and moral safety dimensions identified by Rhodes et al. (2016). Policy would need to go beyond the functional impairment that the health sector focuses on currently. Burgess et al. (2012) emphasizes on the need to expand beyond the ‘error risk’, by integrating newly discovered safety aspects including psychological and emotional harm. Rhodes et al. (2014) discover similar findings, establishing that psychological safety factors are important patient perspectives that should be considered in the medical profession. This is accentuated by Ricci-Cabello et al. (2016) who notes that current frameworks on patient safety are solely based on professional and healthcare system perspectives.
Conclusion
This essay provides a critical analysis of the article Sensemaking and the co-production of safety: a qualitative study of primary medical care patients’ by Rhodes et al. (2016). This analysis has evaluated the problem statement, noting that the study investigates patient safety from a patient perspective through a sensemaking framework. The authors utilize a qualitative study approach, involving the use of semi-structured interview to collect responses form a total of 38 respondents. The study presents important findings for nursing, such as the close association between safety and quality in patient’s interpretation of safety.
References:
Daker-White, G., Hays, R., McSharry, J., Giles, S., Cheraghi-Sohi, S., Rhodes, P., & Sanders, C. (2015). Blame the Patient, Blame the Doctor or Blame the System? A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies of Patient Safety in Primary Care. Plos ONE, 10(8), 1-42.
Legg, M. J. (2011). What is psychosocial care and how can nurses better provide it to adult oncology patients. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28 (3), 61-67.
Mehra, P. (2015). Face to face information seeking behavior of patients and impact on in-clinic satisfaction. Asia Pacific Management Review, 20(4), 193-303.
McCracken, S., & Edwards, J. (2014). “Customer” Knowledge Management in Healthcare. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, 2, 637-640.
Quimby, E. (2012). Doing Qualitative Community Research: Lessons for Faculty, Students and the Community. UAE: Bentham Science Publishers.
Rhodes, P., McDonald, R., Campbell, S., Daker-White, G., & Sanders, C. (2016). Sensemaking and the co-production of safety: a qualitative study of primary medical care patients. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(2), 270-285.
Rhodes, P., Campbell, S., & Sanders, C. (2016). Trust, temporality and systems: how do patients understand patient safety in primary care? A qualitative study. Health Expectations, 19(2).
Rhodes, P., Sanders, C., & Campbell, S. (2014). Relationship continuity: when and why do primary care patients think it is safer? British Journal of General Practice, 2014, e758-e764.
Ricci-Cabello, I., et al. (2016). Patients’ perceptions and experiences of patient safety in primary care in England. Fam Pract, 33 (5), 535-542.
Top, M., & Tekingündüz, S. (2015). Patient Safety Culture in a Turkish Public Hospital: A Study of Nurses’ Perceptions about Patient Safety. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 28(2), 87-110.
Ulrich, B., & Kear, T. (2014). Patient Safety and Patient Safety Culture: Foundations of Excellent Health Care Delivery. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 41(5), 447-457.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. New York: SAGE Publications.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
