. On the other hand the method and results were excellent and very clear to the reader how the results were obtained and what they were and though this appears to not be effective, the conclusion made clear statement.
The introduction is not very clear. There is quite a lot of information there but this reader found that it had to be re-read several times to assure that it were understood. It does create interest in the study and there is good reason for the target audience to read it. It just needs to be better organized and more succinct. The problem was stated twice and in a clear manner and it very clearly important to nursing. This about turning patients and preventing pressure ulcers. It is definitely a caring, patient advocate type of problem. A qualitative approach could have been used here but the quantitative approach makes more sense and the result would lead to a process change.
The study question, “does repositioning alternately 2 hours in a lateral position and 4 hours in a supine position reduce the incidence of pressure ulcer lesions in comparison with repositioning every 4 hours in patients lying on a pressure-reducing mattress?” In looking at this in PICO statements, it meets the needs of a research question and the literature review is consistent.
The synthesis of the literature review was quite well done, organized, and easy to understand. This reader has some question as to whether it is up to date as many of the articles were written between 1992 and 1996 and this particular research was conducted in 2006. There have been many changes in nursing and nursing process since the 90’s so this reader is concerned that there may have been better research out there. There is definitely reason after this research to continue to study this problem in an effort to solve it.
The key concepts are well defined and well organized as is the framework of the study. There is also good description of how the