Article Critique Pay for Performance Sample Paper
Article Critique: Pay for Performance
Healthcare providers utilize research for a variety of health reasons including but not limited to making clinical decisions, improving the quality of patient care, and formulation of healthcare policies. This evidence-based practice is highly recommended because of its overwhelming value in improving the quality of patient care. Consequently, it is elemental for nurses to develop skills for filtering and determining which research articles to deploy best hence critiquing a research article is a crucial skill to gather evidence-based research. The purpose of this piece of writing is to appraise the Challenges of Implementing Pay for Performance Plan in the Views of Nurses Working in Hospitals Affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, a Qualitative Study Report by Rasi et al. (2018).
After going through the Challenges of Implementing the Pay for Performance (PFP) Plan in the Views of Nurses Working in Hospitals Affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, a Qualitative Study Report, it is crystal clear that the exploration was well written with the slightest grammatical errors. To begin with, the title is a correct description of the research and informative as it gives a glance at the key concepts as well as stating the variables and methods of the research. The author of the article has further logically organized the research by describing the abstract exhaustively. The abstract is a mirror image of the report and clearly outlines the background, purpose of the study, methods, results, and conclusions (Moorley & Cathala, 2019). After reviewing the report, it is evident that the research is logical as it has followed all the steps of research. For example, the authors provided a comprehensive introduction, significant literature review, sound data collection, and an in-depth discussion.
Similarly, the introduction section of the article was well structured as it gains the attention of the reader or rather makes the subject area interesting. Additionally, it defines the key concepts of the research such as nurse, hospital, human resource, and pay for performance (Rasi et al., 2018). The introduction also makes the purpose of the article clear. However, this being a qualitative study, it didn’t seek to test a hypothesis. Moorley and Cathala (2019) recommend a statement of the purpose of the study that incorporates the research statement. For instance, in this article, Rasi and associates (2018) aimed at exploring the challenges of the PFP plan in the views of nurses working in hospitals affiliated to Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
The theoretical framework of this research was effectively structured. The authors begin by reviewing the challenges facing the human resource department and the impact of the value-based payment systems and comparing them to the results of various studies globally. The theoretical framework subsequently narrows down to a specific variable and defines this variable based on the distinct standpoint of nurses.
After a deep review of the research, the literature review is comprehensive and extensive. The authors have incorporated evidence and important findings from previous studies that relate to the topic of interest. The references used are a concoction of both current and old sources. Similarly, the lion’s share of these references is primary hence show a wide range of discrepancies. Nevertheless, the literature review elaborates the context of the study by expounding on value-based payment systems through the integration of both old and recent studies.
The methodology section was sound. The authors used a qualitative research approach to address the research objectives. The study setting is well highlighted and the type of sampling technique, as well as the sample size, are clearly indicated. Rasi et al. (2018) set forth an apparent inclusion criterion which consisted of nurses with at least 10 years of working experience. The methods of data collection were also pinpointed and data were collected until saturation as recommended (Moorley & Cathala, 2019). Additionally, ethical issues such as informed consent and data confidentiality were confronted in this report. The data collected was analyzed using content analysis which is one of the recommended styles of analyzing qualitative data. The issues concerning reliability, accuracy, precision, and consolidation of data were taken care of via the triangulation method. This methodology is therefore sound and replicable.
The findings of this report were well presented in tables and figures. The themes analyzed were clearly linked to the data that was collected and the information found in the literature review. The discussion section was comprehensive. The authors contextualize their study by relating the research findings to findings of other studies across the globe. The findings of this research strongly connect with research objectives and aims and are supported with literature. However, the research fails to indicate the limitations encountered in the study. The study recommends proper planning before the implementation of pay for performance plan to avoid the challenges associated with this payment system.
Level of Evidence
The level of evidence is based on the methodological quality of design, validity, and applicability to patient care. In terms of the hierarchy of evidence, qualitative studies usually fall short of quantitative studies. For instance, this being a single qualitative study, it can be ranked at level VI in terms of evidence (Astroth, 2018). However, Astroth (2018) proposes a critical analysis and scoring of individual qualitative study across five parameters namely; descriptive vividness, methodological congruence, analytical preciseness, theoretical connectedness, and heuristic relevance. The legend for this scoring scale is designated QI to QIII based on the percentage criteria score. This report can be ranked QII and it meets 50% to 74% of all the criteria (Astroth, 2018).
Decide if the Study is Applicable to your Practice
Value-based payment systems such as pay for performance are beginning to take roots in human resource management. The benefits of these payment mechanisms are overwhelming. Hermer et al. (2018), in their work, discovered that resident and nursing homes that adopted pay for performance plans had significant improvement in patient care quality as it became safe and patient centered. Similarly, Mathes et al. (2019) in their exploration concluded that pay for performance in hospitals was associated with efficiency in the running of the hospital facilities and equity in the allocation of healthcare resources. In terms of cost and staffing, pay for performance is associated with an overall reduction in healthcare costs and increased job satisfaction respectively.
These overwhelming benefits of the PFP plan can only be achieved with solid planning and execution of the program. This entire study applies to my practice as the findings of this research give a glimpse of future nursing practice. That as current and future nursing leaders along with the stakeholders and policymakers, we should be able to critically evaluate a program such as PFP, taking into account the advantages and the challenges of its execution. Consequently, such in-depth reviews will result in the development of laws and guidelines that will aim at controlling the challenges while enjoying the benefits of the program.
Appraisal of research is vital for shaping the future of the nursing practice. Policymakers and stakeholders should extensively evaluate available information to guide their decision-making. Value-based payment systems such as pay for performance significantly improves the quality of patient care, job satisfaction and reduces overall healthcare costs. Nonetheless, careful planning and implementation are central to relish these benefits.
- Astroth, K. S. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: Reading qualitative research with a critical eye. Nephrology Nursing Journal: Journal of the American Nephrology Nurses Association, 45(4), 381–348.
- Hermer, L., Cornelison, L., Kaup, M. L., Poey, J. L., Drake, P. N., Stone, R. I., & Doll, G. A. (2018). Person-centered care as facilitated by Kansas’ PEAK 2.0 Medicaid pay-for-performance program and nursing home resident clinical outcomes. Innovation in Aging, 2(3), igy033. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy033
- Mathes, T., Pieper, D., Morche, J., Polus, S., Jaschinski, T., & Eikermann, M. (2019). Pay for performance for hospitals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7, CD011156. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011156.pub2
- Moorley, C., & Cathala, X. (2019). How to appraise qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 22(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2018-103044
- Rasi, V., Maleki, M. R., Yarmohammadian, M. H., Reyhani Yasavoli, A., & Doosty, F. (2018). Challenges of implementing pay-for-performance plan in the views of nurses working in hospitals affiliated to Mashhad university of medical sciences: A qualitative study. Modern Care Journal, 15(4), e87007. https://dx.doi.org/10.5812/modernc.87007