NRS 433 Week 3 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique

Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations

Background of Study

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is one of the most common health problems, according to reliable information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other recognized healthcare institutions. Remembering that CHF is characterized by a heart not working properly is vital. Due to functional or structural problems, the heart may fail to execute its usual function. Because the heart is responsible for supplying blood, other organs such as the kidney, brain, and liver are damaged once the heart develops the convoluted clinical condition.

NRS 433 Week 3 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique

Article Support of Nursing Practice

According to scientific evidence, CHF affects around 26 million individuals worldwide. The biggest number of CHF patients are from the United States of America (Butler, 2019). According to evidence-based research, there are only two ways CHF can be treated. The use of medicine is the first option. Some of the medications used to treat this disease include cardiac glycosides, diuretics, vasodilators, and antihypertensive (Du et al., 2018).

Furthermore, this ailment can be cured by altering one’s lifestyle. Most individuals, particularly Americans, fail to monitor their lifestyles, and as a result, they get diseases. Physical activity can help people change their lifestyles. Physical activities are beneficial to an individual’s health since they help people burn calories and lose weight. Weight loss reduces the risk of heart issues, leading to conditions like CHF.

Also Read:

NRS 433 Week 5 Research Critiques and PICOT Statement Final Draft

Method of Study

This research utilized a qualitative, observational, non-experimental, retrospective, multi-center study design of adults discharged from a hospital diagnosed with CHF. The absence of a randomized study and the lack of experimental and control groups have evidenced the design of this study.

Due to the growing mortality rate, higher cost of caring for the sick, and morbidity, many people have raised their concerns about CHF. Since the number of people suffering from CHF continues to rise, morbidity has become a serious issue in modern health care (Xue et al., 2018). This has impacted all aspects of human life as the condition prevents people from engaging in productive activities.

The United States is one country where there have been multiple cases of CHF patients, which has impacted individual items, such as a low profit margin. It has also become more expensive to care for CHF patients as they need ongoing nursing care, which is costly. Because of the constant care required and the hefty cost, caregivers and families find it difficult to cope with such patients. This problem has now become more serious, and several healthcare groups have documented patient outcomes.

Results of Study

This study’s sample size is 4852. All these are adult patients (18 and above years) with a discharge from a hospital diagnosed with CHF. With this staggering roll excluded, this research involves January 2012 to 2014, December.54.8 was the mean age, and 55.5 was the median age of the sample. Further, 9.6%, n=444, were declared in the ICU, those declared in the ED were 75.5 percent (n=3459), and those declared in the ward were 14.8% (N=678).

Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison

The data collected in this study comprised patients present in hospitals in one of the three DHS (Department of Health Services) in Los Angeles County Between January 2012 to December 2019. Additionally, it comprised a dataset of patients who met the criteria of septic shock or severe sepsis within the inpatient or the ED.

Nurses trained to utilize and review took records of the location of the declaration of sepsis (ED vs. ICU vs. ward) and timestamps related serum lactate levels measurement, antibiotics administration, and targeted fluid administration. Further, these nurses determined the infection causes through laboratory reviewing, data from radiography, and admission reviewable. Researchers used data from these events to assess adherence to the bundle.

Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison

CHF management bundle adherence was related to the overall survival improvement in a large public healthcare system. Generally, this was correct regardless of the infection in the anatomic site. Interestingly, the bundle–adherent mortality benefit was focused on patients in the ICU; there was no benefit to bundle adherent care observed by the authors for sepsis patients in the ward or those declared in the ED.

The study’s Strengths

Having a relatively big sample size is one of the strengths of this study. This study had a sample size of four thousand and more, a positive indicator of increasing reliability and validity for non-experimental research.

Weaknesses of the study

This study is prone to hindrances present in a study design called retrospective. Possibly, the abstractors were influenced by pressure from the administration to meet the objectives of bundle-adherence even though they were blinded to the study’s goals. To curb this hindrance, time stamps at the bundle adherence and recalculated intervals and levels of the patients were used by the authors.

It is important to note that there are intrinsic dissimilarities between community and public hospitals. Unfortunately, inaccessibility to preventive care, increased boarding times in the ED, and prolonged waiting times are present and constantly in reality in current public hospitals. Lack of insurance may have led to a more significant percentage of patients being declared in the ED when their illness is in a bad stage.

This research utilized a qualitative, observational, non-experimental, retrospective, multi-center study design of patients who are adults discharged from a hospital diagnosed with septic shock or severe sepsis. The absence of a randomized study and the lack of experimental and control groups have evidenced the design of this study.

Ethical Considerations

The researcher considered several ethical considerations, such as seeking permission from the authority. It is ethical for all researchers to seek permission from the authority before conducting any form of research (Baker et al., 2016). It is sometimes referred to as consent. It is significant to seek permission since some respondents may not be willing to participate in research without consent.

The respondents remained anonymous throughout the research process. It is ethical for respondents to remain anonymous because it might affect them in one way or another. The researcher kept the respondents anonymous to ensure that accurate information or data was attained. Respondents usually cooperate when they know that their personal identity is not known by the public. Also, the researcher kept the respondents confidential by assuring them that they were safe.  

Conclusion

Due to functional or structural problems, the heart may fail to execute its usual function. Since the number of people suffering from CHF continues to rise, morbidity has become a serious issue in modern health care. The researcher considered several ethical considerations, such as seeking permission from the authority.

References

NRS 433 Week 3 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Instructions

Assessment Description

In this assignment, you will write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two quantitative research studies.

Use the practice problem and two quantitative, peer-reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment (or two new articles based on instructor feedback in Topic 1) to complete this assignment.

In a 1,000–1,250-word essay, summarize two quantitative studies.

Use the “Research Critique Guidelines – Part II” document to organize your essay.

You are required to cite a minimum of three peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

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. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Attachments

NRS-433V-RS-T3-ResearchCritiqueGuid

Skip to main content Enable accessibility for visually impaired Open the accessibility menu Open the Accessible Navigation Menu

Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations – Rubric

NRS 433 Week 3 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique Rubric Criteria

Quantitative Studies

Criteria Description

Quantitative Studies

  1. Target

Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.

Introduction of Nursing Practice Problem, Purpose and Picot Question

Criteria Description

Introduction of Nursing Practice Problem, Purpose and Picot Question

  1. Target

Introduction includes the nursing practice problem and purpose of the essay in a comprehensive manner. The PICOT question is concise, accurately written, and includes all elements.

Background of Studies 

Criteria Description

Background of Studies

  1. Target

Background of studies, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and an extensive explanation.

Articles Support of Nursing Practice Problem

Criteria Description

Articles Support of Nursing Practice Problem

  1. Target

A thorough discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles strongly compare to those identified in the PICOT question.

Method of Studies

Criteria Description

Method of Studies

A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article and the comparison of study methods is presented. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods.

Results of Studies

Criteria Description

Results of Studies

A discussion of the results of each study, including key findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.

Ethical Considerations

Criteria Description

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations when conducting nursing research is comprehensively discussed. Discussion of how the researchers accounted for ethical considerations is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose 

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

Criteria Description

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

Evidence

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

Mechanics of Writing

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

Format/Documentation

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

RESOURCES

NRS 433 Week 3 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique

Nursing Research: Understanding Methods for Best Practice

Read Chapter 3 in Nursing Research: Understanding Methods for Best Practice.

https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/grand-canyon-university/2018/nursing-research_understanding-methods-for-best-practice_1e.php

Science, Technology, and Innovation: Nursing Responsibilities in Clinical Research

Read “Science, Technology, and Innovation: Nursing Responsibilities in Clinical Research,” by Grady and Edgerly, from Nursing

… Read More

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792873/pdf/nihms130830.pdf

Research Ethics

Read “Research Ethics,” by Adams and Callahan (2018), located on the University of Washington School of Medicine website.

https://depts.washington.edu/bhdept/ethics-medicine/bioethics-topics/detail/77

Sampling Design in Nursing Research

Read “Sampling Design in Nursing Research,” by Curtis and Keeler, from American Journal of Nursing(2021).

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00000446-202103000-00024&LSLINK=80&D=ovft

Ensuring Data Fidelity in Quantitative Research

Read “Ensuring Data Fidelity in Quantitative Research,” by Siegmund and Siedlecki, from Clinical Nurse Special

… Read More

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00002800-202111000-00003&LSLINK=80&D=ovft

Ethics and the Reporting of Research Findings

Read “Ethics and the Reporting of Research Findings,” by Milton, from Nursing Science Quarterly(2019).

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00006236-201901000-00005&LSLINK=80&D=ovft

Essential Versus Nonessential: The Ethics of Conducting Non-COVID Research in a Population of Persons Living With Serious Illness During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Read “Essential Versus Nonessential: The Ethics of Conducting Non-COVID Research in a Population of Persons Living With Serious Illness

… Read More

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://ovidsp.ovid.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00129191-202202000-00009&LSLINK=80&D=ovft

Experimental (Trial) Research

Read “Experimental (Trial) Research,” by Stoica, from Salem Press Encyclopedia (2021).

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89164212&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1

Rubric

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NRS-433V NRS-433V-OL191 Rough Draft Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations 200.0
Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) 3: Satisfactory (83.00%) 4: Good (94.00%) : Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 75.0%
Quantitative Studies 5.0% Only one article is presented. Neither of the articles presented use quantitative research. Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one article is based on quantitative research. N/A N/A Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.
Background of Study 10.0% Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is incomplete. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is included but lacks relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is partially complete and includes some relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. Background of study, including problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research questions, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.
Article Support of Nursing Practice 15.0% Discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is incomplete. A summary of how articles support the PICOT question is presented. It is unclear how the articles can be used to answer the proposed PICOT question. Significant information and detail is required. A general discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate general support in answering the proposed PICOT question. It is unclear how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Some rational or information is needed. A discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in the PICOT question. Minor detail or rational is needed for clarity or support. A clear discussion on how articles support the PICOT question is presented. The articles demonstrate strong support in answering the proposed PICOT question. The interventions and comparison groups in the articles strongly compare to those identified in the PICOT question.
Method of Study 15.0% Discussion on the method of study for each article is omitted. The comparison of study methods is omitted or incomplete. A partial summary of the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is incomplete. A benefit and a limitation of each method are omitted or incomplete. There are significant inaccuracies. A general discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is summarized. A benefit and a limitation of each method are summarized. There some inaccuracies or partial omissions. More information is needed. A discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is generally described. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. There minor are inaccuracies. Some detail is required for accuracy or clarity. A thorough discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. The comparison of study methods is described in detail. A benefit and a limitation of each method are presented. The discussion demonstrates a solid understanding of research methods.
Results of Study 15.0% Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is incomplete. A summary of the study results includes findings and implications for nursing practice but lacks relevant details and explanation. There are some omissions or inaccuracies. Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is generally presented. Overall, the discussion includes some relevant details and explanation. Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is complete and includes relevant details and explanation. Discussion of study results, including findings and implications for nursing practice, is thorough with substantial relevant details and extensive explanation.
Anticipated Outcomes and Outcomes Comparison 15.0% Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are omitted or are unrealistic. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is incomplete. Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are partially summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes contains omissions of key information. It is unclear how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare. Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are summarized. Comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes is generally presented. More information is needed to fully establish how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare. Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are discussed. A comparison of research article outcomes to anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented. Some detail is needed for clarity. Anticipated outcomes for the PICOT are thoroughly discussed. A detailed comparison of research article outcomes to the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT is presented. An explanation of how the anticipated outcomes of the PICOT and those of the current research mentioned compare is presented in detail.
Organization and Effectiveness 15.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction 5.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Argument is clear and convincing and presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing  (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Format 10.0%
Paper Format  (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage 100%