Critique article - Research Paper Example

Attitudes of Respiratory Therapists and Nurses About Measures to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Survey StudyTitle of the article:The title of the article, Attitudes of Respiratory Therapists and Nurses About Measures to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Survey Study, cites the “attitudes” of health care practitioners about measures and standards to preventing pneumonia. It is inaccurate because what the study investigated were actual clinical practices and adherence.

“Attitudes” connote behavior which entails perception and other aspects related to the psychology of actions. The authors could have been more specific with the title because it appears to be misleading. In addition, it should not have generalized respiratory therapists and nurses because the study is confined to a limited population and the sampling method cannot be considered representative of the universal population. Nonetheless to focus on prevention of ventilator-associated Pneumonia is clear.

Introduction:The introductory section is clear, concise and informative. It successfully established the subject of the study and explained its objectives and significance. Of, particular importance are the empirical evidences that built the case for the research hypothesis and the research framework. Literature Review:The section reviewing previous literature on the research subject is practically non-existent. Prior studies were cited but in a very sweeping manner and only served to support points made in the Introduction section.

Some previous studies were cited such as the survey among French and Canadian ICU directors on VAP adherence and the work of van Nieuwenhoven et al. (2006), which addressed clinical applicability of prevention measures. But the details are not sufficient to establish a gap that the article could fill and develop a research framework accordingly.Methodology:The methods section did not specify an overarching methodology that could have outlined a clear research framework or effectively defined research concepts.

If there is, it should have been clearly identified. Instead, the paper - in the methodology section - merely talked about the process without even citing how such processes came to be. This aspect highlights the most critical flaw of the study.Like the manner by which the methodology was written, the data gathering process was similarly unsystematic. The researchers merely created a survey and distributed the questionnaires without attempting to design a scientific sampling procedure. The same can be said about the content of the questionnaire and consequently the type of data gathered.

Based on these parameters, the researchers were able to develop a questionnaire, then the data gathering strategy. It is unclear, which came first because the researchers admitted to not undertaking any preliminary research to inform or guide the succeeding stages of research. It is also difficult to evaluate the validity or efficacy of questionnaire since it was not attached in the paper.Result (data analysis and findings):Data analysis and findings were effectively carried out because the method used for this particular research aspect was scientific.

They revealed that clinical practices in accordance with VAP prevention standards have improved, with 83% of the respondents reporting adherence. About 80% reported adherence to nonpharmacologic strategies.Discussion: It is difficult to endorse the content of the discussion. Although the findings were sound according to the manner by which data was analyzed, the method that ensures their validity is suspect. For instance, the findings as discussed appear to go against previous research. If majority of RTs and RNs report adherence, then why is nosocomial infections among ventilated patients the leading cause of VAP-related morbidity?