The current paper conducts quantitative appraisal and critique of the article by Seibert, Speroni, Oh, Devoe and Jacobsen (2014). Therefore, the paper focuses on the main points of academic significance and scientific value of the research provided by the scholars.
Quantitative Appraisal and Critique
The study conducted by Seibert et al.(2014) presents a constructive and topical research that addresses preventive measure from transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The attitudes and suggestions of the experienced medical personnel are studied. The introductive part of the study outlines the background and topicality of the direction of research, and the next section deals with methodology of investigation. Nonetheless, the interview questions are identified and presented in the paper:
- How do you feel MRSA affects you as a HCW?
- What are suggestions of ways to prevent transmission of MRSA?
- How are you challenged in your work task when you have to enter an isolation room?
- What are other barriers that prevent implementing isolation precautions or appropriate hand hygiene? (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406).
The research conducted by Seibert et al. (2014) is qualitative. This aspect is vividly highlighted in the title of the study, and the references to the qualitative type of research are made by the scholars frequently. The background for the given research was using the preliminary study of qualitative sources, and the deficit of qualitative research is underlined by Seibert et al.(2014). Along with such, the authors of the article emphasized that a comprehensive estimation of the preventive measures for MRSA transmission consists of three main domains, namely, quantitative, qualitative, and direct observation methods (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406). The scholars also underline that only qualitative evaluation of MRSA preventive practices is capable of providing the experts with detailed, thorough and profound insight as well as a richer insight into HCWs perceptions (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406). Hence, the selected approach to the research is relevant, justified, and constructive.
The method that was chosen in the context of a qualitative study is a semi-structured interview. To be more precise, the length of the given interview was 30 minutes. The period during which the interviews were taken comprised September and October 2012. The major focus of the interviews was on the dominating MRSA perceptions and key challenges connected with elimination of transmission of MRSA in acute health care settings (Seibert et al., 2014). The method of interview with open-ended questions as a central instrument fits the ultimate goal of the study by Seibert et al. (2014). Moreover, this method enables the researchers with an in-depth insight into the issue in questions and the opportunity to acquire additional information that pertains to the field of research, but is not identified in the interview questions.
The overall number of participants of the interview is 26. It is relevant to highlight the initial sample that was 276 HCWs. The method of selection was applicable as far as the main criteria pertained to the engagement in the scope of direct patient care. Hence, the participants audience is apparently a proper and constructive one. In fact, 42 of the HCWs were volunteers for the offered interview, and 26 finally completed it. The quantity of the interviewed HCWs is not huge, but it is significant due to the diversity of representation. To be more precise, different health care fields and versatile age groups were engaged: 16 nurses, 1 physician, 6 allied health professionals, and 2 support staff... 3 age 18-25 years, 6 age 26-35 years, 7 age 36-45 years, 4 age 46-55 years, and 6 age 56 years and older (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406). Furthermore, a variety of employment status is also an important aspect that contributes to the overall study value. Moreover, the length of the interview and open-ended questions provided an excellent opportunity to acquire sufficient data for the given research. Nevertheless, a number of participants could be bigger to cover wider scale of research and the overall validity of the study by Seibert et al. (2014).
The data was collected in the hospital during September and October 2012. Every interview was recorded as well as transcribed to preserve accuracy and precision of the data that has been acquired during the research. Moreover, comments were imported into Excel and sorted by theme (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406). The lead scholar and two investigators employed a directed approach with an open and selective method of coding (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406). The key themes and categories were commented, and the leading unique elements were identified in terms of each interview for proper categorization. Hence, the scholars employed a constructive approach to the data analysis. It guaranteed not only accuracy and precision, but also efficiency of the final results for further use, analysis, development or conclusions. The iterative process was used for the course of categorization refinement. It is also important that the final scheme on categorization includes all the core objectives of the interview questions, and, at the same time, comprises such important in the given context points as time management, knowledge or education about MRSA, communication (including signage), and mechanisms of MRSA contamination (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 406). Hence, the scale of the study is multidimensional, vast, and perspective.
The next aspect that should be addressed is the level of trustworthiness. Williams and Morrow (2009) discuss the core implications of the concept of trustworthiness in the scope of qualitative study and provide an outline of the key considerations of trustworthiness. These implications include integrity of data acquired in the course of research, transparent communication of the final outcomes of the study, and proper application of the findings (Williams & Morrow, 2009). Merriam (2009) also contributes to overall comprehension of the notion of trustworthiness in terms of qualitative study by highlighting such important factors as credibility and transferability. The qualitative study by Seibert et al.(2014) should be regarded as the one that adheres to the principles of data integrity and transparent communication of the research findings. Moreover, the principle of credibility is also vividly presented in the study as far as triangulation was used. Triangulation denotes for interview data collected from people with different perspectives (Merriam, 2009, p. 216). Seibert et al. (2014) apparently employ this method in their study since there was participation of a diverse group of HCWs, including support staff, and conducting interviews onsite during work shifts (Seibert et al.,2015, p. 410). Therefore, the aspects of trustworthiness may be attributed to the given study due to its accomplishments and integrity of approach.
How it works
Step 1Visit our website and go to the order form
Step 2Fill in specific essay details in your order description section
Step 3Pay for your custom essay and get your order verified
Step 4Process of writing your academic assignment
Step 5Editing and anti-plagiarism check
Step 6On-time delivery of an already written essay
The findings of the study are clearly and properly addressed in the final section. To be more precise, the research showed that HCWs considered themselves to have the ultimate responsibility for prevention of the MRSA transmission and reveal significant motivation to adhere to hand hygiene and contact precautions, but time pressures and heavy workloads pose challenges to adherence (Seibert et al., 2014, p. 410). Along with such, it is crucial to initiate and maintain constructive collaboration between all the units of the hospital to provide holistic and efficient patient care. Therefore, organizational leadership should be employed for the development and establishment of the culture in medical establishments. The strengths of the study by Seibert et al.(2015) include a diversity of the participants statuses, interviewing in comfortable places that encouraged more profound and detailed responses, and vast scale of the research focuses on the topical theme. The limitations of the study are such as choice of the sample of self-selective type and occasional rush in the process of interview caused either by emergencies in the medical establishment, or noise, at some places where interviews were taken.
The study conducted by Seibert et al.(2014) is a valuable contribution to the field of interest. Its significance in terms of nursing practice is connected with the addressing the actual perceptions of MRSA transmission and relevant preventive measures that were linked to the discussion of instruments aimed to eliminate the challenges and dilemmas in the given context. Nursing research is enriched with a credible and perspective investigation that may be attributed to both further theoretical investigation and improvement of empirical performance. Furthermore, the results of the study are also important for the scope of nursing knowledge as far as they broaden the area of a potential paradigm shift in nursing guidelines and norms by means of initiating educational interventions and efficient communicational patterns as the core directions of enhancement course. Personally, I would consider using the findings of the scholars in my practice since they address topical issues of nursing performance. Nonetheless, it is expected that the given research will be expanded, and the preventive measures will be investigated further to develop constructive and holistic models for empirical use by nursing personnel.