Critical review of case in Health management | Assignment Sample

Sample Assignments

You can download the sample Nursing case study on Critical review of case in Health management with the following question for free at the end of this page. For further assistance with Nursing Assignment help, please check our offerings in Nursing assignment solutions. Our subject-matter experts provide online assignment help to Nursing students from across the world and deliver plagiarism free solution with a free Turnitin report with every solution.

(AssignmentEssayHelp does not recommend anyone to use this sample as their own work.)

Nursing Assignment Questions

Identify a Research Topic Based on your area of Interest/Concern to you from your own area of practise. Develop an appropriate research question- Discuss how the research findings could be utilized to improve patient/client care

Nursing Assignment Solution on Human Growth & Development

CRITICAL REVIEW OF LITERATURE

ABSTRACT

This gives the reader a brief idea about what research is done and what the group is trying to convey. As the objective say’s the study is carried out for evaluating the efficiency of gel-based hand sanitizer and poster it has relevance for the current study. The attitudes and inclination of outpatient care staff are towards both the interventions will help in addressing the issue of hand washing and hand hygiene. On the contrary, the recommendations by WHO (World health organization) is without any abstract section. It is obvious from the fact, recommendations are universally acceptable and it’s not one group study. Although, a short brief summary could have been provided to help readers in assessing the relevance of the current article. Unlike the above piece of article, the article written by Rupp et al, (2007) clearly gives a brief note on perspective cross controlled trial conducted. The background, design, settings, methods and results are clearly indicated. The study is more focused on Clostridium dificile and ICU settings, which is a less explored domain of hand sanitizer. This study has more relevance to the current critical review. Although, the book by Polit and Beck doesn’t have an abstract section, yet the book has got much importance as it gives a descriptive note on the importance of research evidence in nursing and how appraisal should be done. This has helped in critique review of articles taken for the study. None of the studies as highlighted the important keywords. The articles have clearly mentioned their findings such as Kukanich et al mentioned gel based hand sanitizers when accompanied by poster it gives a better result. Rupp et al concluded, although hand sanitizer (alcohol based) helps in improving hand hygiene practice, yet whether it has any relation with health care-associated infection needs more research.

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The research articles or book taken into consideration has detailed on the issue as far as research problems concerned. For example- Kukanich et al clearly mentioned in the first introductory paragraph irrespective of the existence of different guidelines on hand hygiene, the compliance to hand hygiene process is too less. The article has given relevant research evidence derived from other primary studies to justify their position. The WHO recommended guidelines compiled by Pitet (2009) has also justified their stand with regard to the absence of consensus guidelines. Similarly, the article by Rupp et al has emphasized upon nosocomial infections and its correlation with hand sanitation. In overall, the research studies have rightly addressed, the focus area which has relevance to the current critical study.RESEARCH QUESTION

Although the studies have not mentioned clearly about research question which may force the reader to go for an in-depth study, the abstract portion neutralizes the demerit. The paper by Kukanich et al has objectives clearly mentioned, which has relevance in contemporary time. The studies taken into consideration have no hypothesis, and almost experimental in their approach. The recommendation by WHO is an exception of the research approach point of view. The recommendation summary clearly indicated the need for a consensus on hand hygiene guidelines. The article by Rupp et al, doesn’t indicate any objectives rather justified their experimental trial from the very first sentence. It may pass the wrong impression of a confirmatory study. Except for this article all literature is taken into consideration has rightly addressed the research question. No particular section on terminology or definition can be found in these articles which might pose a problem for readers. This is the only demerit where readers can get confused. For example- Rupp et al study are based on nosocomial infections, but the study has not given any definition of nosocomial infection.

LITERATURE REVIEW

With respect to the literature review, the article by Kakunich et al has given a short but focused literature review. Within two short paragraphs, the authors have taken thirteen references into account to give background knowledge on the topic. The references are within last eight years of publication and some are old. The literature review would have been much more relevant if it would have addressed recent publications or confirmatory studies. The literature review in this study can mislead the reader as based on one single publication, the authors have shown baseline hand hygiene percent to be low in clinics. The inclusion of more recent publications would have given more relevance to the topic and would have facilitated readers with updated knowledge. Unlike the above article, the guidelines of WHO on hand hygiene compliance and consensus includes a diverse range of literature justifying each and every guideline included. Since it was published in2009, most studies are more than eight to ten years old. Although such studies must be included in the current topic chosen for the study, it demands most recent updates on the topic. This is one drawback of this study. Similarly, the prospective study carried out by Rupp et al, doesn’t provide a descriptive literature review neither gives a logical explanation of why Clostridium dificile is taken for the study in ICU settings. The study took only five references to give a brief background on the topic. Although the reader understands the topic, but doesn’t get enough information on what is the research problem. The literature are also eight to nine years old which are referenced. These are the drawbacks of Rupp et al article which has discussed the effect of alcohol based hand sanitizer on health care-associated infections. With regard to the book included for review, each section has been explained in detail which can be easily understood. It gives a descriptive explanation for each topic such as the essential of qualitative research design or quantitative research design. The book is published in 2014 which also justify its inclusion in the study.

 

 

Download Free Sample AEH

(Some parts of the solution has been blurred due to privacy protection policy)

Check More Samples

Order Now