Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Successful research does not rely solely on the reliability of gathered data. The analysis conducted by scholars is essential to the results as well. Therefore, while evaluating articles, a healthcare professional should consider the logic behind the authors’ conclusions (Bernd, du Prel, & Blettner, 2009). For example, the study “Medication Double-Checking Procedures in Clinical Practice: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Oncology Nurses’ Experiences” by Schwappach, Pfeiffer, and Taxis (2016) explores the opinions of nurses on the practice of double checking. This procedure is employed to reduce the rate of MAEs (medication administration errors). The survey used in this article, as well as its results and implications, will be evaluated further.
Schwappach et al. (2016) state that the double-checking procedure is considered to be an essential method of preventing errors in many organizations, but its reliability is not examined thoroughly. Thus, they collect and assess nurses’ views on the usefulness of this practice. Moreover, they also aim to determine which types of double checking are seen by healthcare professionals as more reliable than others. Schwappach et al. (2016) utilize a cross-sectional survey to evaluate different approaches to this procedure, its effectiveness measured by the rate of found mistakes, as well as the barriers to and the advantages of double checking.
The results, obtained from 274 oncology nurses, are analyzed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and χ2 tests. Schwappach et al. (2016) find that the most common type of double checking is the “read-read-back” scenario (p. e011394). They also note that nurses’ reporting of errors and understanding of the process vary significantly based on their unit and the check’s type. The data shows that joint checks are a preferred approach among nurses and that such interruptions as noise, hurry, poor lighting, and fatigue can interfere with the quality of tests. The authors conclude that nurses positively view the practices they use most often, outlining joint checks as the most reliable, and urge future research to analyze the mentioned distractions.
The scholars base their conclusions on findings and use the percentages from calculations to support the discussion. For instance, the prevalence of joint checks was noted by nurses as the most common type and regarded by them as the most reliable one (Schwappach et al., 2016). Based on this information, the authors determine that nurses prefer it to all other approaches. Similarly, the most frequently mentioned distractions are also noted by authors as the ones that need attention from other scholars. The methodology chosen for this study allows the researchers to see the performance and reliability of each check type from the nurses’ perspective. Based on the gathered information, the authors could also conclude that nurses tend to view joint double checking as a more useful method because they utilize it more often than other approaches.
This research differs from systematic reviews or studies focused on the rate of errors – it evaluates personal views, which can serve as a weakness of these findings (Polit & Beck, 2017; van der Eijk & Rose, 2015). Nonetheless, the discussion points are based on the initial questions. It should be pointed out that the focus on nurses’ opinions allows the authors to formulate their conclusions about individual views and not objective findings. This opens up more opportunities for future research. For example, other professionals’ opinions about double checks can be investigated. Nurses from intensive care units, end-of-life care, pediatric care, and other spheres can be approached with a similar study.
References
Bernd, R., du Prel, J.-B., & Blettner, M. (2009). Study design in medical research: Part 2 of a series on the evaluation of scientific publications.Deutsches Aerzteblatt International, 106(11), 184–189. Web.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
Schwappach, D. L. B., Pfeiffer, Y., & Taxis, K. (2016). Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: A cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses’ experiences. BMJ Open, 6(6), e011394.
van der Eijk, C., & Rose, J. (2015). Risky business: Factor analysis of survey data–assessing the probability of incorrect dimensionalisation. PloS ONE, 10(3), e0118900.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.