Qualitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Qualitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Background of the Studies

Schmidt et al.’s (2020) research’s intention is to address the spread of multidrug-resistant pathogenic microorganisms because of frequent hospitalization – a phenomenon that is increasingly becoming common among kids with life-limiting pre-existing conditions. Besides increased hospital stays, drug resistance among children is also on the rise because of immunosuppression, the use of more specialized equipment (such as a central nervous catheter), and numerous antibiotic therapies. Standard hygiene protocols require the isolation of children that get infected with multidrug-resistant microorganisms. However, the isolation of these patients in pediatric care settings negatively impacts the participation of kids and healthcare workers in the exercise. Therefore, the objective or aim of this research was to investigate the opinions and attitudes of nurses towards PALLINI, which is a hygiene model for individuals infected with MR pathogens. The research question being addressed is, “what is the viewpoint of nurses regarding multidrug-resistant pathogens in the healthcare system?” In general, by identifying the reception and perception of nurses towards PALLINI, stakeholders can identify and implement the best hygiene concept that can help reduce the stigmatization associated with the isolation of children diagnosed with multi-drug resistance.

On the other hand, Albrecht et al.’s (2017) study’s intent is to understand the impact of glove and gowns on the prevention of MRSA in healthcare nursing homes. The aim/objective is to determine the present application and viewpoints associated with gown and glove use in these nursing home care settings. The research question that researchers sought to address was, “what value do residents, administrators, and staff assign to gloves and gowns for MRSA acquisition control?” The outcomes of this research will play a significant part in informing a strategy that nurses and other healthcare workers might employ to minimize the transmission of MRSA in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.

How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?

These two articles will answer the chosen PICOT question in two unique ways. For example, Schmidt et al.’s (2020) research examined how the PALLINI tool might help nurses attend to young patients colonized with MRSA by alleviating the negative perceptions that often impact the delivery of care. On the other hand, Albrecht et al.’s (2017) explored the current perceptions and uses of gowns and gloves in preventing the spread of MRSA in nursing homes. The precautionary measures highlighted in this research are part of the contact isolation protocols in the healthcare plan stipulated in the PICOT question. In the PICOT question, the comparison is between the contact isolation group and the hand hygiene group –how they relate in terms of reducing the spread of hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA. Schmidt et al.’s (2020) study participants represent the intervention group (contact isolation), while Albrecht et al.’s (2017) research participants represent the control group (hand hygiene). Based on the PICOT question, the objective is to investigate how ‘contact isolation,’ as a precautionary measure, compares to hand hygiene in lowering the spread of hospital-acquired illnesses, especially methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus during a hospital stay.  

Method of Study

Schmidt et al. (2020) used a semi-structured interview methodology to collect their qualitative data. In particular, they mixed a structured qualitative content analytical approach and guideline-oriented interviews (open and topic-based data collection). The researchers purposefully sampled nurses working in a pediatric palliative care department, with eligibility being that they should have been working for at least three months at the palliative care unit. Participants were first required to recount their understanding and experiences working with the PALLINI concept before open-ended questions were used to inquire about their exact interactions with the model. On the other hand, Albrecht et al. (2017) used the focus group methodology – including five with the residents, one with administrators, and three with staff members – to collect information about the present perceptions and application of gowns and gloves in nursing home care. All the focus groups were identified from three nursing homes in Maryland.

There are certain advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the two methods used above. For example, the benefit of Schmidt et al.’s (2020) semi-structured interview methodology is that it offers flexibility to the respondents and, thus, the interviewer can collect better responses compared to things like questionnaires. There is also the advantage of the interviewer being able to read and record the mood and feelings of the respondents. But, conducting interviews is time-consuming and requires a lot of financial investment. Besides, interviews are sometimes prone to bias, with respondents sometimes likely to answer questions based on the interviewer’s age, class, race, reaction, as well as physical appearance. On the other hand, the benefit of Albrecht et al.’s (2017) focus group approach is that it is less time-consuming and cheaper because large groups of participants are interviewed simultaneously compared to interviews that require each participant separately. Like the interview technique, focus groups face the challenge of moderator bias – who might inadvertently or intentionally introduce personal preferences and biases into discussions.

Results of Study

Schmidt et al. (2020) identified four different classes of nurses’ opinions and attitudes toward PALLINI, including participation, quality of care, effort, and safety. The results showed that the nurses were ambivalent about PALLINI in all four categories. Specifically, ambivalence or uncertainty stemmed from noncompliance by the family members versus guaranteeing infection control. Also, indecision arose from the impaired relationship existing between nurses and parents of the children vs. delivering better healthcare to the youngsters as well as extra work for children with MRSA pathogens vs. the absence of sufficient resources. In spite of the ambivalence, nurses highlighted the essence of organizing routine activities for the patients they are required to take care of, allowing them to experience the highest level of social participation possible.

On the other hand, Albrecht et al. (2017) indicated employing gloves and gowns principally as self-protective gear against getting in touch with bodily fluids from patients as opposed to preventing the transmission of MRSA. In addition, the researchers described glove use as a more acceptable and common practice among staff members than gown use. Both administrators and staff members expressed a readiness to use gloves and gowns for care activities classified as high-risk. Finally, the researchers identified a knowledge gap about MRSA infection and transmission among residents and direct staff employees.

Ethical Considerations

The two important considerations that researchers must observe when conducting research are the aspect of informed consent as well as getting approval from a review board. According to these rules, Schmidt et al. (2020) obtained written consent from all participants after thoroughly explaining to each member the research method and purpose. The researchers also made sure that participation was voluntary. On the other hand, Albrecht et al. (2017) sought the consent of each participant verbally. The researchers also ensured that their study was approved by the University of Maryland’s Institutional Review Board.

References

Albrecht, J. S., Croft, L., Morgan, D. J., & Roghmann, M. (2017). Perceptions of gown and glove to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission in nursing homes. JAMDA, 18, 158-161.

Schmidt, P., Hartenstein-Pinter, A., Wager, J., Hasan, C., & Zernikow, B. (2020). Addressing multidrug-resistant pathogens in pediatric palliative care patients – the nurses’ point of view. Palliative Medicine, 34(3), 249-357.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Qualitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two qualitative research studies. Use the “Research Critique Guidelines – Part 1” document to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide rationale, include examples, and reference content from the studies in your responses.

Use the practice problem and two qualitative, peer-reviewed research article you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment.

In a 1,000–1,250 word essay, summarize two qualitative studies, explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Attachments

• NRS-433V-RS2-ResearchCritiqueGuidelinesPart I.docx

RUBRIC

• Attempt Start Date: 27-Jul-2020 at 12:00:00 AM

Maximum Points: 190.0