NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools
NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools
NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools Evaluation Table
Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
| Full citation of the selected article | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Conceptual Framework Describe the theoretical basis for the study. | ||||
| Design/Method Describe the design and how the study was carried out | ||||
| Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients,the attrition rate, etc. | ||||
| Major Variables Studied List and define dependent and independent variables | ||||
| Measurement
Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions. |
||||
| Data Analysis
Statistical or qualitative findings |
||||
| Findings and Recommendations General findings and recommendations of the research | ||||
| Appraisal
Describe the general worth of this research to practice. What are the strengths and limitations of the study? What are the risks associated with the implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research? What is the feasibility of use in your practice? |
||||
| General Notes/Comments |
NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools: Levels of Evidence Table
Use this document to complete the levels of evidence table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
| Author and year of the selected article | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Study Design Theoretical basis for the study | ||||
| Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients | ||||
| Evidence Level *(I, II, or III) | ||||
| Outcomes | ||||
| General Notes/ Comments |
* Evidence Levels:
The evidence levels are:
- Level I
Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis
- Level II
Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis
- Level III
A nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis
- Level IV
Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence.
- Level V
Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence
Also Read: NURS6052 Searching Databases
NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools Outcomes Synthesis Table
Use this document to complete the outcomes synthesis table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
| Author and year of the selected article | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients | ||||
| Outcomes | ||||
| Key Findings | ||||
| Appraisal and Study Quality | ||||
| General Notes/Comments |
NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment: Critical Appraisal Tools Sample Template
In order to address the topic of HAIs’ potential to influence positive health outcomes in clinical settings, this report thoroughly and methodically evaluates four investigations.
There are tables for the level of evidence, the synthesis of the results, and the review of the literature.
Valid and trustworthy information on what is or is not likely to damage patients and the approaches to care that are cost-effective is required for nurses to protect public health and deliver high-quality services.
Introduction
Evaluation Table
Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
| Full citation of the selected article | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Ford, C., & Park, L. J. (2018). Hand hygiene and handwashing: key to preventing the transfer of pathogens. British Journal of Nursing, 27(20), 1164–1166. | Hovi, T., Ollgren, J., & Savolainen-Kopra, C. (2017). Intensified hand-hygiene campaign including soap-and-water wash may prevent acute infections in office workers, as shown by a recognized-exposure -adjusted analysis of a randomized trial. BMC Infectious Diseases, 17, 1–9 | Kingston, L. M., O, C. N. H., & Dunne, C. P. (2018). A comparative study of hand hygiene and alcohol-based hand rub use among Irish nursing and medical students. Nurse Education Today, 63, 112–118. | Halm, M., & Sandau, K. (2018). Skin Impact of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs Vs Handwashing. American Journal of Critical Care, 27(4), 334–337. | |
| Conceptual Framework Describe the theoretical basis for the study | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
| Design/ Method Describe the design and how the study was carried out | Design- Clinical practice guidelinesMethod-clinical guidelines based on the review of literature of hand hygiene and handwashing by NICE, WHO and other studies. | Design-Randomized control trial
Method-1270 people from designated clusters were randomized to two different interventions (either the use of alcohol hand-rubs or water and soap). NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools. On a weekly basis self-reported data of GTI and RTI symptoms were collected through emails. The multilevel binary regression model was used to analyze data. |
Design-Observational cross-sectional designMethod-a questionnaire was administered electronically to 872 medical and nursing students in a university and outcome data analysed using relevant software. | Design- Systematic review Method- a comprehensive search was conducted in the electronic databases of MEDLINE and CINAHL using the keywords: contact dermatitis, handwashing, dermatitis and hand hygiene. |
| Sample/ Setting The number and characteristics of patients, the attrition rate, etc. | Step by step clinical guidelines on how to maintain hand hygiene and to conduct handwashing in the clinical setting. | 1270 people from designated clusters were randomized to two different interventions (either the use of alcohol hand-rubs or water and soap). | 323 medical and nursing students responded to online questionnaires on the barriers to adherence to hand hygiene guidelines. | 3 studies which assessed the impact of handwashing vs. alcohol-based handrubs on the skin were reviewed. |
| Major Variables Studied List and define dependent and independent variables | Dependent variable-none Independent variable-none | Dependent variable-RTI and GTI symptoms Independent variable-alcohol hand rubs, water and soap | Dependent variables-body fluid exposure, patient surrounding Independent variable– alcohol hand rubs, use of soap and water | Dependent variable-dermatitis Independent variable– alcohol-based hand rubs and handwashing |
| Measurement Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions | Guidelines provided by NICE and the WHO on hand hygiene and handwashing. | Weekly prevalence of RTI and GTI symptoms | Compliance with WHO hand hygiene model, compliance with hand hygiene practices after contact with a patient’s surrounding or exposure to body fluids. | Incidence and prevalence of dermatitis/ contact dermatitis |
| Data Analysis Statistical or qualitative findings | Decontamination of the hands through handwashing using soap and water is the most effective and easy way to prevent the spread of infections in the clinical setting. | Within 16 months of the trial, 230 participants who used nothing, 297 participants who used soap and water, and 238 participants who used alcohol-based hand rubs all presented their reports. Both the intervention and control groups showed an increase in RTI and GTI exposure. When compared to the control group, the prevalence of GTI dropped to 24% among individuals who used soap and water. Alcohol rubs had no impact on the symptom prevalence. | Of the 872 participants, 323 responded. Nursing students complied more with the WHO “my five moments for hand hygiene” model as compared to medical students. Compliance with hand hygiene was high after being exposed to body fluids (MS 91%. NS 99.5%) and low after contact with a patient’s environment (MS-57.5%, NS-61.5%). Both disciplines had a positive attitude towards hand rubbing. 45% of MS and 16% of NS were not aware of the clinical contraindications to using ABHR. 36% of MS and 9% of NS did not know when to use ABHR and when to use soap and water. 22% NS and 46% MS routinely used ABHR for decontamination. | 3 relevant studies were retrieved. ABHRs were not linked to reduced skin hydration, allergic reactions and disruption of the skin barrier. Skin tolerance of ABHRs was high with reports from healthcare providers on less irritation of the skin and less dryness in comparison to the use of lotions, creams or handwashing. |
| Findings and Recommendations General findings and recommendations of the research | Washing hands with soap and water is the best decontamination method in preventing HAIs. | Handwashing with soap and water safeguarded the participants from GTI and RTI. In clinical settings, it should be adopted as an infection control measure to prevent/reduce the incidence and prevalence of HAIs. | Gaps in knowledge on hand hygiene and handwashing are a potential barrier to deficits in hand hygiene practice and use of ABHRs. In clinical settings, leadership should identify potential knowledge gaps, frequently review hand hygiene policies and address them as required. | Evidence on how ABHRs influence contact dermatitis and the effectiveness of antiseptic hand hygiene protocols in preventing dermatitis was level II and III. Lipid-emulsifying alcohols or agents disrupt the skin barrier and cause a lot of skin irritation thus should be avoided. |
| Appraisal Describe the general worth of this research to practice. What are the strengths and limitations of study? What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research? What is the feasibility of use in your practice? | Adds to clinical knowledge on how to prevent the transfer of pathogens in healthcare settings through handwashing and hand hygiene. It has no risks associated with implementation in clinical practice and is highly feasible in my practice. | The study adds to the nursing knowledge on how to prevent RTI and GTI infections in the clinical setting. A major strength is that since a wide study sample was used, the results can be applied to wide population settings. However, since the data collected on RTI and GTI symptoms were based on electronic self-reporting; varied reports might include biased data which affects the validity and reliability of the results. The research is however feasible in my practice. | The research adds to nursing knowledge on the potential barriers in observing hand hygiene practices in clinical settings. Its major limitation is that since it had a self-reporting design, the likelihood of potential biases is high. However, the huge random study sample increases the validity, reliability and applicability of the results. The study is highly feasible in my practice. | |
Levels of Evidence Table
Evidence Levels: NURS 6052 Week 6-7 Assignment Critical Appraisal Tools
- Level I
Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis
- Level II
Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis
- Level III
Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis
- Level IV
Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence
- Level V
Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence.
Critical Appraisal Tools
Based on this critical appraisal, the studies recommend routine hand hygiene with soap and water as the effective decontamination method to reduce the spread of pathogens and rates of HAIs in the clinical setting.
References
- Ford, C., & Park, L. J. (2018). Hand hygiene and handwashing: key to preventing the transfer of pathogens. British Journal of Nursing, 27(20), 1164–1166.
- Hovi, T., Ollgren, J., & Savolainen-Kopra, C. (2017). Intensified hand-hygiene campaign including soap-and-water wash may prevent acute infections in office workers, as shown by a recognized-exposure -adjusted analysis of a randomized trial. BMC Infectious Diseases, 17, 1–9.
- Kingston, L. M., O, C. N. H., & Dunne, C. P. (2018). A comparative study of hand hygiene and alcohol-based hand rub use among Irish nursing and medical students. Nurse Education Today, 63, 112–118.
- Halm, M., & Sandau, K. (2018). Skin Impact of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs Vs Handwashing. American Journal of Critical Care, 27(4), 334–337.
Also Read:
NURS6052 Week 10 Discussion: Developing a Culture of Evidence-Based Practice
NURS-6052 Assignment: Evidence-Based Capstone Project, Part 6: Disseminating Results
