When analyzing any research article. it is of import to review it exhaustively. A thorough review allows the reader an chance examine the survey in item. In this mode. the reader may do a thoughtful sentiment sing the existent scientific value of the survey. This is peculiarly true in the Fieldss of nursing and medical specialty. Presently. both Fieldss continue to travel towards evidence-based interventions. As a consequence. it is of import to weigh the grounds that each survey offers to the literature. In this review. a qualitative survey published in 2012 in the BMJ Open diary is examined. The article is entitled “Barriers and Bridges to Infection Prevention and Control: Consequences of a Qualitative Study of a Netherland’s Surgical Unit. ” The writers are Backman. Marck. Krogman. Taylor. et Al.
The clinical job explored by the writers involved the infection bar and control patterns on a surgical unit. The writers examined the policies and processs related to these patterns. Furthermore. they studied what barriers exist to forestall nursing staff from following the needed infection bar policies. The writers recognized that Infection bar and control ( IP & A ; C ) in the ague attention environment is one of the most of import issues inmodern healthcare” ( Backman et Al. 2012. p. 1 ) . In the modern wellness attention puting. hospital-acquired infections ( HAIs ) have become progressively common. These HAIs lead to increased mortality and morbidity and burthen the patients. Additionally. they place an economic strain on the wellness attention system. The incidence of them is besides dismaying. Approximately seven per centum of all hospitalized patients will develop a HAI ( World Health Organization. n. d. ) . While wellness attention staff are familiar with the importance of IP & A ; C. there may be barriers for them with respects to the appropriate policies and processs.
Purpose and Research Questions
The writers clearly stated their intent and research inquiries in the abstract. These were besides reiterated in a concise and clear article sum-up on the first page. “The aims of the survey are to detect the overall work environment including infection bar and control ( IP & A ; C ) patterns on the mark surgical unit” ( Backman et Al. 2012. p. 1 ) . The writers broke the survey down farther due to the acknowledgment that there are several facets that influence the overall work environment. These extra inquiries included analysing the hospital’s policies and processs that were related to IP & A ; C. The writers besides examined the possible barriers. every bit good as the Bridgess. that practicians experienced in the infirmary units. The last portion of the survey focused on the aggregation of anon. informations that was related to IP & A ; C. These inquiries were clearly stated in several countries of the article in a concise format that the reader could appreciate ( Backman et Al. 2012. p. 1 ) .
This was a important failing of the article. The writers did non offer a separate literature reappraisal subdivision. The writers did discourse the background of the issue in the “Introduction” of the article. While this is frequently done in articles. it really creates a failing in the article. It is preferred that a separate literature reappraisal subdivision exists within the article. For the intent of this reappraisal. the information discussed in the introductory subdivision will be reviewed. The writers did explicate the ground that this information requires farther survey. This includes the rise of multi-drug immune beings in assorted states. Of involvement in this subdivision was the information about the Netherlands. The Netherlands and environing states appear to hold enormous success in cut downing the prevalence of drug-resistant beings. However. the writers continue. the grounds for this are non clear. This was the ground for this survey. The writers wanted to research the possible grounds that these states do non hold the same incidence and prevalence of multi-drug immune beings.
Overall. six surveies were discussed in the debut. The survey was published in 2012 ; nevertheless. many of the surveies examined did non run into the typical five twelvemonth bound. The survey was begun in April. 2008 ; this does assist to explicate some of the older informations. However. the articles did day of the month dorsum to 2002 ; this still did non run into the five-year cutoff. The incidence and prevalence of infective diseases is a changing world ; this should hold been considered by the writers. The articles were qualitative. They examined the relationship between policies and processs and the results of infection control. Qualitative articles were acceptable for this survey.
While the writers gave the basic background information with respects to their determination to carry on the survey. this created a serious failing for the survey. Persons who read the survey do non hold sufficient background information to analyze the consequences of the survey in an equal mode. The background information given by the writers was highly weak. A true literature reappraisal subdivision needed to be explored and to be offered by the writers.
The writers clearly identified their model for this survey. Harmonizing to the writers. “in this survey. a socio-ecological attack on wellness systems informed this research design and provided a model to better understand the complexness of implementing effectual IP & A ; C” ( Backman et Al. 2012. p. 2 ) . The writers besides offered a definition for the reader with respects to this model. This. of class. is helpful to any reader who may non be familiar with a peculiar model or construct. A socio-ecological model allows a greater apprehension of both the personal facets and the environmental facets related to a peculiar state of affairs.
Furthermore. the model allows an grasp of how the personal and the environmental facets interact with each other in assorted state of affairss. An apprehension of the interrelatedness offers one a greater apprehension of the system as a whole ( Backman et Al. 2012. p. 2 ) . This account and treatment of the model was helpful and apprehended. This theoretical account has been shown to be rather effectual for bar ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013 ) .
Of peculiar involvement in this subdivision was Appendix 1. The writers listed the constituents of the socio-ecological model in a elaborate chart. The chart contained a thorough account of each portion of the model. These included “citizen scientific discipline. ” “engaged pattern. ” “place ethic. ” and “adaptive acquisition and growth” ( Backman et Al. 2012. p. 11 ) . This article would function rather good as background information for anyone engaging in a survey from this theoretical position. The writers offer the reader a short debut into this type of survey design. For this ground. the article would be recommended.
Overall. this was an interesting article. It is of import to acknowledge that there was a important failing in it. The deficiency of literature reappraisal leaves much to be desired with respect to the article. Despite this. the article would be recommended because of its model treatment. This model treatment allows the reader a greater apprehension of the socio-ecological model. This model is an of import one when analyzing bar methods in wellness attention.
Backman. C. . Marck. P. B. . Krogman. N. . Taylor. G. . Gross saless. A. . Bonten. M. J. . & A ; Gigengack-Baars. A. C. ( 2012 ) . Barriers and Bridgess to infection bar and control: consequences of a qualitative instance survey of a Netherlands’ surgical unit. BMJ unfastened. 2 ( 2 ) . 1-11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2013. December 27 ) . Socio-ecological theoretical account. Retrievedfrom: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. gov/violenceprevention/overview/social- ecologicalmodel. html World Health Organization. ( n. d. ) . Patient safety. Retrieved June 9. 2014. from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. who. int/gpsc/country_work/gpsc_ccisc_fact_sheet_en. pdf