Evaluating a Health Promotion Website

863 Words2 Pages

In order to provide the best possible care for the patients in their care nurses should determine the most effective and accurate handover. Therefore, Analizing the level of data retained or lost from employing different handover methods is crucial.

Here the above paper with be critiqued using the step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research (Coughlan, Cronin and Ryan, 2007).

In defining quantitative research the term can be dichotomized. Firstly, research refers to creative, systematic work with the intention to increase the knowledge of man and thereby devise new applications (OECD, 2002). In addition Gray (1997) stated that research should improve performance and that the results should be generalizable and be open to critical appraisal. Secondly, quantitative paradigms attempt to measure the event, predict and develop causal explanations to explain the event. Achieved through using an established design based on theory and hypothesis, whereby extensive data is collected, with the attained statistical data analysed using mathematical methods (Creswell, 1994).

Moreover, when applied to this paper, the quantitative research hopes to record the rate of data loss in nursing handover, using data collection and analysis to increase knowledge. Thereby, informing best practice for nurses with regard to handover methods.

The title is accurate, clear, and relates directly to the question posed. In addition, the title contains 12 words thereby avoiding being confusing or misleading as stated by Meehan (1999 cited by Coughlin et al. 2007) and Parahoo (2006 cited by Coughlin et al. 2007).

There are four credited authors for the paper, Pothier, Monteiro, Mooktiar and Shaw. At the time of publish...

... middle of paper ...

...r technique (Aveyard, 2010).ht ethree types of handovewr examined were:

1, Purely verbal,

2, Note taking style

3, A typed sheet accompanying a verbal handover.

The absence of the handovers or examples means theses can not be judged or repeated effecting the generalizability of the research (Newell and Burnard, 2011).

Ethically the research was beneficial, aimed at informing best care for patients with autonomy observed for the participants as all were volunteers. To avoid any bias the investigators was blinded to the results of the others, with points only recoded only with agreement (though video recording was used for any discrepancies). The use of fictitious patients avoided issues of confidential and privacy for the patients, however no mention was made of anonymity of the volunteers or any permission from the ethics committee (HSE, 2001).

Open Document