Quantitative Research Critique

Quantitative Research Critique

The title of the article being critiqued is “The impact of workload on hygiene compliance in nursing”, which was published in the British Journal of Nursing (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010). Authors There are three authors for this quantitative research study. Martin Knoll is the HTW of Saarland, Clinical Nursing Research and Evaluation, Saarbruecken, Germany.

Christine Lautenschlaeger, Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometry and Medical Informatics, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany is the second author. And last, Marianne Borneff-Lipp is head of the Institute for Hygiene, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010). Introduction to Study Quantitative research is used when trying to determine the meaning of life experiences and situations. This is done by using a systematic and subjective approach to study.

The goal of quantitative research is to determine the relationship between one thing, an independent variable, and another, the dependent variable (Burns & Grove, 2011). The purpose of the study was to examine whether external factors such as ward capacity and level of nursing intensity had any effect on compliance of hand hygiene guidelines by the nursing staff (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010). Protection of Human Participants During the six participant observation trials nurses were observed, without their knowledge, to see if they complied with hand hygiene disinfection.

When a nurse was observed to have neglected hand hygiene an interview was immediately conducted to understand why previous training on hand hygiene guidelines were ignored. The observations and interviews were conducted with permission from hospital management and the medical director that were in accordance with the Guidelines of Good Research Practice (Cambridge University, 2005). Informed consent was obtained by nursing staff when subsequent interviews were undertaken after notice of failure to comply with the guidelines and they did so voluntarily (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010).

Benefits of participation were not addressed by the researchers. Data Collection Major variables for this study were identified. The independent variable identified by the researchers is the nursing staff with the dependent variable being data collected from the interviews. Data was collected for this study during a 12 month time period, from June 2007 to May 2008. Data collection was divided into six observation trial periods that included June, September, and November of 2007 and January, March, and May of 2008. Nursing staff from ten departments were observed for research.

Those departments included four surgery units, four internal medicine units, and two interdisciplinary intensive care units. Data was collected by observations and interviews. A researcher observed nurses for hand disinfection, when a nurse failed to do so the researcher introduced themself to the nurse and immediately initiated a narrative interview (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010). Rationale for using the previously described collection methods was so the study could employ the Hawthorne effect. (Stroebe, 2003).

The Hawthorne effect exercises influence on the nurse through teaching that is intended to motivate behavioral change (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010). Data Management and Analysis There was no information provided by the researchers about data management. A descriptive design and trend analysis was used to determine problems with current practice of the nurses interviewed. Data analysis was done through categorization of summarized core statement. Seven categories with subsequent causes were developed as well as a structured definition of those categories.

The rigor process was not addressed by the researchers. To minimize the effect of researcher bias the interviews were consistently conducted by the same interviewer in a controlled environment (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010). Findings / Interpretation of Findings The findings from the research are valid and have an accurate reflection of reality. Confidence in the findings is positive because it addressed the purpose of the study. Nursing staff illness, absence, vacation, and difference in full or part time employment were not taken into account and make up the limitations of the study.

The study used coherent logic as was evidenced by categorization of data, tables, and section titles. The study findings can be applied to all aspects of nursing practice in all areas. One question that emerged that requires further study is how such an imbalance could arise between the scope of every day nursing duties and the time available to perform them (Knoll, Lautenschlaeger, & Borneff-Lipp, 2010).

References

• Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2011). Understanding nursing research. Maryland Heights: W.B. Saunders. Cambridge University. (2005).
• Good research practice. http://tinyurl. com/3yhf8py Knoll, M. , Lautenschlaeger, C. , & Borneff-Lipp, M. (2010).
• The impact of workload on hygiene compliance in nursing. British Journal of Nursing, 19(16), S18-S22. Retrieved on March 24, 2013 from http://ehis. ebscohost. com. library. gcu. edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=0e6f5b68-9e35-492d-9fae-b57d46b48458%40sessionmgr112&vid=7&hid=6 Stroebe, W. (2003). Sozialpsychologie. 4th Ed. Heidelberg, Berlin.