We're Open
+44 7340 9595 39
+44 20 3239 6980



  • Post Date 2018-11-07T11:55:11+00:00
  • Post Category New Samples

No Plagiarism Guarantee - 100% Custom Written

Order Details



Separate groups: NURS328 Students (tinaa) Assignment 3: Critique of a Research Report (30%) Select either a quantitative or qualitative research study that is of interest to you. Search terms such as "research" and "nursing" (or another discipline if not a nurse) will help you to narrow your search to an article written by researchers from within your specific discipline. Ensure that the study you select is a research study (avoid literature reviews or summaries of research articles). You should approve your choice of article with your tutor prior to proceeding with the critique. It is important to select an online article from a journal database from the Athabasca University Library so that your tutor has access to the article that you will critique. Please include the persistent link URL with your paper so that the tutor can access the article or send as a .pdf attachment. Submit using the links in the Assessment section on the course home page. Resend your approved article to your tutor when you submit your assignment. Read the chapter in your course textbook about Critiquing Research Reports (Chapter 17) before proceeding with this assignment. You should pay particular attention to the information on General Guidelines for Conducting a Written Research Critique located in Box 17-3 and the Guides to an Overall Critique in Tables 17.1 and 17.2. To help you collect and organize your comments you could use the Five Dimensions of a Research Critique outlined in your textbook or alternately, the Reader`s Companion Worksheet in your Davies and Logan (2003) textbook. Note: there are two worksheets, one for qualitative research studies and one for quantitative research studies. Your paper will be restricted to a maximum length of 8-10 typed, double-spaced pages, excluding the title and reference pages, and should adhere to APA format. Assignment 3 is due after you have completed Unit 14. Please include the following content in your critique: 1. Substantive and Theoretical Dimensions relevance of research problem and significance appropriateness of the conceptual framework congruence between research question and methods used literature review 2. Methodological Dimensions research design population and sample collection of data validity 3. Ethical Dimensions confidentiality or anonymity informed consent vulnerability of study subjects/participants research ethics board approval 4. Interpretive Dimensions discussion section conclusion section implications section 5. Presentation and Stylistic Dimensions any missing information clear, grammatically correct writing well organized enough detail, no jargon Also include a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study. Use examples to illustrate points. Make sure your content is accurate and "critique-like" demonstrating evidence of critical thinking. Suggest realistic alternatives to improve/enhance the quality of the research. Presentation of your paper will also be graded. Make sure you include a title page as per APA (12 pt font, running head etc.), introduction (no subheading) that includes a brief overview of what will be included in your paper, headings and subheadings, scholarly objective language, appropriate grammar and spelling, APA referencing in the body of your paper and on your reference page, and a conclusion (with this subheading). Submitting Your Assignment When you have completed this assignment, send it to your tutor for marking. Always retain a copy of your assignment for your files. Click the "Browse" button to find your assignment and then "Upload" to move it into Moodle. If you make a mistake, you can delete the uploaded file by clicking the red X next to the file name. Then, add a note if needed and click the "Submit for Marking" button to send it to your instructor. Submitting your assignments Available from : Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 01:55 PM Use the Upload this file button below to upload your completed assignment file(s). Don`t forget to click on Send for marking after you upload your assignment file(s). The maximum upload file size is 50MB Uploaded files will be renamed automatically to comply with AU requirements. Need additional help? No files submitted yet Notes No entry You are hereCNHS / ► NURS328_C6 / ► Assignments / ► Assignment 3: Critique of a Research Report◄ Previous activity Introduction The Adventures of Ruby - Plagiarism Course Mail Live Chat News Forum Conference Topics Introduction Forum Unit 1 Forum Unit 2 Forum Unit 3 Forum Unit 4 Forum Unit 5 Forum Unit 6 Forum Unit 7 Forum Unit 8 Forum Unit 9 Forum Unit 10 Forum Unit 11 Forum Unit 12 Forum Unit 13 Forum Unit 14 Forum Coffee Room (General Discussions) Schedule Study Guide Units Unit 1: The Value of Research and Evidence-Based P... Unit 2: Qualitative and Quantitative Research Unit 3: Research Ethics Unit 4: Research Problems, Questions and Hypotheses Unit 5: The Literature Review Unit 6: The Theoretical Framework Unit 7: Quantitative Research Design Unit 8: Qualitative Research Design Unit 9: Sampling in Research Unit 10: Scrutinizing Data Collection Methods Unit 11: Evaluating Measurements and Data Quality Unit 12: Analyzing Quantitative Data Unit 13: Analysis of Qualitative Data Unit 14: Critiquing Research Reports Assessment Overview Assignment 1: Facilitating Evidence-Based Practice... Assignment 1 Marking Criteria Assignment 2: Making Research Real and Relevant Paper Assignment 2 Marking Criteria Researchability and Feasibility Issues in Conducti... Jump to... Assignment 3 Marking Guide Final Examination Final Exam (Invigilator Access Only) View Submitted Assignments Course Evaluation References AU Library Resources Orientation to Online Learning Tips for Successful Online Communication AU Help Desk Moodle Training MyAU - AU Central Login Next activity ► I have chosen the qualitative article attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study. --------------------------------------------------------------------------Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study S M Evans, J G Berry, B J Smith, A Esterman, P Selim, J O`Shaughnessy, M DeWit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See end of article for authors` affiliations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correspondence to: Ms S Evans, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Victoria, Australia; [email protected] edu.au Accepted for publication 22 November 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:39–43. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2004.012559 Objectives: To assess awareness and use of the current incident reporting system and to identify factors inhibiting reporting of incidents in hospitals. Design, setting and participants: Anonymous survey of 186 doctors and 587 nurses from diverse clinical settings in six South Australian hospitals (response rate = 70.7% and 73.6%, respectively). Main outcome measures: Knowledge and use of the current reporting system; barriers to incident reporting. Results: Most doctors and nurses (98.3%) were aware that their hospital had an incident reporting system. Nurses were more likely than doctors to know how to access a report (88.3% v 43.0%; relative risk (RR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.63), to have ever completed a report (89.2% v 64.4%; RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61), and to know what to do with the completed report (81.9% v 49.7%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13). Staff were more likely to report incidents which are habitually reported, often witnessed, and usually associated with immediate outcomes such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment. Near misses and incidents which occur over time such as pressure ulcers and DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis were least likely to be reported. The most frequently stated barrier to reporting for doctors and nurses was lack of feedback (57.7% and 61.8% agreeing, respectively). Conclusions: Both doctors and nurses believe they should report most incidents, but nurses do so more frequently than doctors. To improve incident reporting, especially among doctors, clarification is needed of which incidents should be reported, the process needs to be simplified, and feedback given to reporters. It is a decade since Leape1 highlighted the need to gather information and redesign hospital systems to minimise errors in health care. Since then, many strategies and tools have been developed to identify and reduce errors.2 More than 90% of consumers believe that healthcare workers should report errors,3 and peak quality and safety organisations 4–6 recommend incident reporting to better understand errors and their contributing factors. Incidents occurring infrequently, or those not easily coded through limitations in the existing classification system,7 can miss detection through medical record review. Incident reporting captures more contextual information about incidents8 and, when actively promoted within the clinical setting, it can detect more preventable adverse events than medical record review9 at a fraction of the cost.10 Near misses are rarely documented in medical records,11 yet occur more frequently than adverse events12 and provide valuable lessons in recovery mechanisms without the detrimental consequences of an adverse event.5 6 The subjective data provided by incident reporting enable hypothesis building and preventative strategies to be developed and tested. Despite its strengths, many incidents are not reported probably for the same reasons they are omitted from medical records; they are simply not recognised, and those that are detected after the event are often not dealt with effectively.13 Outside the discipline of anaesthesiology, incident reporting is used predominantly by nurses.14 15 The subjective nature of reports, the lack of consistency and validation of incident data classification, and underreporting constrain incident reporting from being used as a reliable epidemiological tool to measure the frequency of events and whether interventions are effective in improving patient safety.2 14 Studies which have successfully improved incident reporting have often done so through intense facilitation, either through ward rounds9 or staff reminders,10 16 and have questionable sustainability. For incident reporting to be more reliable, both doctors and nurses must provide a representative account of errors occurring in hospitals. The objectives of this study were therefore to investigate by profession: (1) awareness and use of the current incident reporting system; (2) the types of incidents staff were more likely to report and believe should be reported; and (3) the barriers to reporting. METHODS Study design A cross sectional survey of doctors and nurses was undertaken between November 2001 and June 2003. Hospitals sampled included three principal referral hospitals (each with .300 acute inpatient beds), one major referral hospital (,200 acute inpatient beds), and two major rural base hospitals (each with ,120 acute inpatient beds) in South Australia. Rostered doctors and nurses, and casual agency nurses working in one or more of the four intensive care units (two metropolitan and two rural), four emergency departments (two metropolitan and two rural), five surgical units (three metropolitan and two rural), and seven medical units (five metropolitan and two rural) were invited to participate. Project officers either personally distributed questionnaires to rostered staff and outlined the purpose of the study or, where this was not possible, posted the questionnaire. All doctors were contacted by telephone to encourage participation. To facilitate frank comment without fear of disclosure, the questionnaire was anonymous and self-administered. Ethics committee approval was obtained from each hospital`s relevant body. 39 www.qshc.com Questionnaire The questionnaire was modified from one used in an obstetrics unit by Vincent et al17 to make it generalisable to a wider population. Following review by a panel of clinicians to assess content validity, the questionnaire was piloted on 14 doctors and 10 nurses. Test-retest reliability was determined using a kappa statistic, and only questions for which there was at least moderate reproducibility (kappa >0.4) or a consistent endorsement of one option were included. Content Staff were asked if they knew whether their hospital had an incident reporting system. Those answering in the affirmative were asked whether they knew which form to use, how to access it, and what to do with a completed form. To measure reporting practice, staff were asked to estimate how often they reported 11 patient incidents representing a diverse range of common iatrogenic injuries,18 and how often they believed each should be reported using a 4-point Likert scale (never, ,50% of occasions, >50% of occasions, always). To determine barriers to reporting, staff were provided with 19 potential reasons for not reporting incidents and asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) the degree to which these acted as a deterrent. Analysis of data Comparisons were made for doctors and nurses by profession, level of qualification, years post entry level qualification spent in the acute health sector, and rural/metropolitan location. For knowledge and use of reporting systems and reporting practices, log binomial generalised linear models adjusting for clustering by hospital were used. Likert scales were dichotomised into agree or not agree for reporting barriers and analysed using Fisher`s exact test. The conventional level of p(0.05 was taken to represent statistical significance. Concordance between views on current reporting behaviour and necessity of reporting was determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data were analysed using Stata statistical software Version 7.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). RESULTS The overall response rate was 72.8%, and was similar for both doctors and nurses (fig 1). As the questionnaire was anonymous, we were unable to ascertain the demographic features of non-respondents. Knowledge and use of the incident reporting system Nurses had a greater awareness of and used the incident reporting system more than doctors (table 1). Senior doctors (registrars and consultants) were significantly less likely than junior doctors (interns and residents) to have ever completed an incident form (58.4% v 85.4%; relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73). Doctors with .5 years experience post entry level were less likely to have ever completed an incident report than those with less experience (58.1% v 79.2%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). There were no significant differences between rural and metropolitan doctors in knowledge or use of the incident reporting system. Senior nurses (nurse managers and clinical nurses) were more likely than junior nurses to know how to access a form (100.0% v 88.0%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.18), to know what to do with it (100.0% v 80.9%; RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.35), and to have ever filled one out (100.0% v 89.0%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.15). Permanently employed nurses were significantly more likely than contract nurses to know how to locate/access an incident form (89.1% v 57.1%; RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.95), to know what to do with it once completed (82.7% v 50.0%; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.45), and to have ever filled one out (90.0% v 57.1%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.06). Nurses with .5 years post entry level experience were more likely to know how to locate a form (91.5% v 83.8%; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.14), to know what to do with it once completed (85.5% v 76.7%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17), and to have ever filled out an incident form (94.0% v 82.5%; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23) than those with less experience. Rural and metropolitan nurses did not differ in their knowledge or use of the incident reporting system. Staff reporting practices Figure 2 shows, for 11 patient incidents, the percentages of doctors and nurses who perceive they report the incident always, on 50% or more of occasions, less than 50% of occasions, or never, and their views on the necessity of reporting these incidents. Doctors reported that they completed incident reports most often for patient falls and least often for pressure sores. Doctors` views ranged from 75.8% who believed that patient falls should always be reported to only 42.1% for drug error ‘‘near misses``. Agreement between what doctors did compared with what they thought they should report was low, ranging from an ICC of 0.44 for incidents where a patient received the wrong treatment or procedure to an ICC of 0.17 for pressure sores. Senior doctors were less likely than junior doctors to always report patient falls (38.1% v 74.4%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.87) and patients receiving the wrong treatment or procedure (39.5% v 54.1%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). There were no significant differences in reporting practices among doctors according to rural/metropolitan location. Nurses reported that they completed incident reports most often for patient falls and least often for pressure sores. Nurses regarded falls as the most important incidents to always report and drug error ‘‘near misses`` as the least important (97.0% and 41.9%, respectively). The correlation between what nurses did compared with what they thought they should report ranged from an ICC of 0.78 for patient falls to an ICC of 0.27 for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) through inadequate prophylaxis. Nurses with ,5 years experience were more likely to always report DVT (23.0% v 14.4%; RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.74). There were no significant differences in reporting practices among nurses according to rural/metropolitan location. Staff views on barriers to reporting Table 2 shows that major barriers to reporting for doctors were lack of feedback (57.7%), the incident form taking too long to complete (54.2%), and a belief that the incident was too trivial (51.2%). There were no significant differences for Metropolitan 482 (76.0%) nurses 41 clinical nurse managers 353 clinical nurses 74 enrolled nurses 14 agency nurses Rural 105 (63.6%) nurses 12 clinical nurse managers 68 clinical nurses 25 enrolled nurses Metropolitan 165 (71.1%) doctors 75 consultants 50 registrars 21 residents 19 interns Rural 21 (67.7%) doctors 19 consultants 2 residents 186 doctors completed the questionnaire (response rate = 70.7%) 587 nurses completed the questionnaire (response rate = 73.5%) 263 doctors invited to participate (232 metropolitan: 31 rural) 799 nurses invited to participate (634 metropolitan: 165 rural) Figure 1 Sampling frame. 40 Evans, Berry, Smith, et al www.qshc.com any barriers according to level of qualification, experience, and rural/metropolitan location. Major barriers to reporting for nurses were lack of feedback (61.8%), a belief that there was no point in reporting near misses (49.0%), and forgetting to make a report when the ward is busy (48.1%, table 2). Nurses with .5 years experience were more likely to believe there was no point reporting near misses (52.5% v 44.0%; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34) than nurses with less experience. There were no significant differences for any barriers according to level of qualification and rural/metropolitan location. DISCUSSION With adverse event rates estimated to be in the range of 2.9%19 to 16.6%18 of acute care hospital admissions, most doctors and nurses working in hospitals will be familiar with a range of adverse events. Despite most staff knowing that an incident reporting system existed, almost a quarter of staff did not know how to access an incident form or what to do with it once completed, and over 40% of consultants and registrars had never completed a report. Nurses were more aware of the reporting system than doctors, although casually employed nurses were significantly less likely than permanent hospital nurses to know how to access a report, and were a third less likely to have ever completed a report. At the time of the survey the AIMS reporting system had been used in each hospital for at least 5 years. The reporting system, which offers statutory immunity to reporters, collects data which are entered retrospectively into a stand alone database within each hospital and is managed by only authorised hospital personnel. In most cases reporting practices were consistent with staff views on the necessity of reporting incidents. Incidents which are immediate, often witnessed, and habitually reported (such as patient falls and medication errors requiring corrective treatment) were better reported than incidents which occurred gradually and were often not attributable to a single event, or were commonly regarded as complications of prolonged hospitalisation (such as pressure ulcers, hospital acquired infections, and postoperative DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis). Only 42.0% of the staff surveyed believed that medication near misses should always be reported, indicating that literature emphasising the importance of reporting near misses12 is not translating to changes in attitude or clinical Table 1 Awareness and use of the incident reporting system Doctors (%) Nurses (%) p value* Relative risk 95% CI Yes N Yes N Awareness of hospital incident reporting system 93.6% 174 99.8% 586 0.195 1.01 0.99 to 1.03 Ever completed an incident report 64.6% 115 89.2% 520 ,0.001 1.38 1.19 to 1.61 Know how to locate/access an incident form 43.0% 77 88.3% 515 ,0.001 2.05 1.61 to 2.63 Know what to do with a completed incident form 49.7% 89 81.9% 476 ,0.001 1.65 1.27 to 2.13 *Log binomial generalised linear models adjusting for clustering by hospital. Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Should report Do report Nurses Doctors 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Patient injury due to a fall Drug error requiring corrective treatment Patient received wrong treatment or procedure Equipment fault resulting in patient harm Drug error not requiring corrective treatment Patient did not receive necessary treatment Breach in confidentiality Hospital acquired infection Post-operative DVT due to inadequate prophylaxis Drug error made, not given to patient Pressure sore 0% Never Should/Do report50% of occasions Always Figure 2 Staff self-perception of reporting of incidents. Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting 41 www.qshc.com behaviour. The finding that 80.9% of doctors thought they should always report when a patient gets the wrong treatment—yet only 57.3% believed they should always report when a patient does not receive necessary treatment— is important, given that acts of omission have been implicated in twice as many adverse events as acts of comission.18 Almost two thirds of respondents believed lack of feedback was the greatest deterrent to reporting. Organisational factors relating to structures and processes for reporting,20 such as inadequate feedback, long forms and insufficient time to report, were identified as the major barriers. Many of our results support those obtained internationally, including the finding that only a small percentage of doctors formally report incidents,20 21 and unfamiliarity with the reporting process results in a poorer reporting culture.22 Whereas other studies identified cultural issues such as fear of disciplinary action,17 23 legal ramifications, and workplace discrimination24 as barriers to reporting, our study, like that of Uribe et al,20 did not identify these issues to be major reporting obstacles. Poor reporting practices by doctors and the fact that they did not identify cultural barriers so much as organisational barriers to reporting probably reflects the prevailing deeply entrenched belief in medicine that only bad doctors make mistakes. There were a number of limitations to this study. This survey formed baseline data for a matched controlled study in which purposive sampling was undertaken to reduce contamination between intervention and control units and to ensure a variety of areas were represented. Despite nonprobability sampling being less ideal than random selection,25 our findings were similar to those determined by Vincent et al17 in a distant healthcare setting, which suggests that the results are representative. Non-responder bias cannot be excluded as we were unable to collect information on nonresponders due to the anonymous design of the survey. There may be potentially important variables and barriers not included in the questionnaire because we needed to limit questionnaire burden. Despite being anonymous, respondents may have provided more socially acceptable responses for fear of identification, which might explain why cultural barriers were not reported as significant deterrents to reporting. We did not investigate why staff reported certain incidents more frequently than others. Perhaps staff did not view them as incidents, or believed tools exist to detect/ monitor them or that, in the case of senior medical staff, they delegate reporting to junior staff. Further research is required to explore why senior medical staff do not support reporting and why iatrogenic injuries with potentially disastrous consequences such as DVT and hospital acquired infections are poorly reported. Our data suggest that the move towards more casual nurses26 could result in a further decline in the number and types of reports submitted, which requires action if incident reporting is to be valued as an important component of each hospital`s risk management framework. Balancing the requirement to receive adequate information on an incident report to enable meaningful analysis and follow up with the clinician`s desire to make it less time consuming is an ongoing concern. Faster reporting systems, combined with adequate resources and infrastructure to enable responsive action and feedback, need to be adopted. The use of personal digital assistants,27 call centres to collect information,28 and techniques such as root cause analysis29 to investigate incidents offers possibilities to enable safer health care to be delivered. Perhaps the most challenging task is ensuring that practice improvements resulting from reports are disseminated to clinicians, because only then will incident reporting be seen as worthwhile and relevant. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Rhonda Bills, Clinical Epidemiology Unit for administrative support; Dr Deborah Turnball, Department of General Practice, University of Adelaide and Lora DalGrande, Centre for Population Studies in Epidemiology, SA Department of Human Services for valuable advice on questionnaire construct and format; and the staff of the participating hospitals for completing the questionnaire. Authors` affiliations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S M Evans, Department of Medicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia, 5005 J G Berry, Research Centre for Injury Studies, Flinders University, South Australia, 5001 B J Smith, P Selim, J O`Shaughnessy, M DeWit, Clinical Epidemiology and Health Outcomes Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Australia, 5011 A Esterman, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia, South Australia, 5000 Table 2 Self-perceived barriers to reporting (percentage who agree with the statement) Incident Doctors (%) Nurses (%) p value* Agree N Agree N (doctors v nurses) I never get any feedback on what action is taken 57.7 170 61.8 570 0.371 The incident form takes too long to fill out and I just don`t have the time 54.2 168 44.1 571 0.022 The incident was too trivial 51.2 170 41.2 565 0.027 When the ward is busy I forget to make a report 47.3 167 48.1 574 0.930 I don`t know whose responsibility it is to make a report 37.9 169 10.8 573 ,0.001 When it is a near miss, I don`t see any point in reporting it 36.0 172 49.0 569 0.003 The AIMS+ form is too complicated and requires too much detail 31.9 163 35.0 565 0.512 Junior staff are often blamed unfairly for adverse incidents 31.0 171 25.6 571 0.169 Adverse incident reporting is unlikely to lead to system changes 28.6 171 29.9 568 0.775 I wonder about who else is privy to the information that I disclose 27.1 170 33.8 568 0.112 If I discuss the case with the person involved nothing else needs to be done 24.9 169 11.5 566 ,0.001 I don`t feel confident the form is kept anonymous 22.6 168 30.0 574 0.065 I am worried about litigation 20.7 169 20.6 574 1.000 It`s not my responsibility to report somebody else`s mistakes 17.2 169 16.4 567 0.814 My co-workers may be unsupportive 13.8 167 20.8 573 0.045 I don`t want to get into trouble 10.6 169 18.6 570 0.014 Even if I don`t give my details, I`m sure that they`ll track me down 8.4 167 17.0 564 0.006 I am worried about disciplinary action 8.3 168 18.1 570 0.002 I don`t want the case discussed in meetings 7.2 167 15.5 574 0.005 *Fisher`s exact test. 42 Evans, Berry, Smith, et al www.qshc.com REFERENCES 1 Leape LL. Error in medicine. JAMA 1994;272:1851–7. 2 Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, et al. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 2001;43:1–668. 3 Evans SM, Berry JG, Smith BJ, et al. Anonymity or transparency in reporting of medical error: a community-based survey in South Australia. Med J Aust 2004;180:577–80. 4 Australian Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care. Safety in numbers. A technical options paper for a national approach to the use of data for safer health care. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. 5 Department of Health. An organisation with a memory. London: Stationery Office, 2000. 6 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000:1–16. 7 Runciman WB, Moller J. Iatrogenic injury in Australia, A report prepared by the Australian Patient Safety Foundation for the National Health Priorities and Quality Branch of the Department of Health and Aged Care of the Commonwealth Government of Australia. Adelaide, South Australia: Australian Patient Safety Foundation, 2001. 8 Runciman WB, Merry A. A tragic death: a time to blame or a time to learn? Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:321–2. 9 Beckmann U, Bohringer C, Carless R, et al. Evaluation of two methods for quality improvement in intensive care: facilitated incident monitoring and retrospective medical chart review. Crit Care Med 2003;31:1006–11. 10 O`Neil AC, Petersen LA, Cook EF, et al. Physician reporting compared with medical record review to identify adverse medical events. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:370–6. 11 Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Retrospective case record review: a blunt instrument that needs sharpening. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:2–3. 12 Barach P, Small SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ 2000;320:759–63. 13 Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Small SD, et al. The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1995;21:541–8. 14 Johnson CW. How will we get the data and what will we do with it then? Issues in the reporting of adverse healthcare events. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12(Suppl II):ii64–7. 15 Kingston MJ, Evans SM, Smith BJ, et al. Attitudes of doctors and nurses towards incident reporting: a qualitative analysis. Med J Aust 2004;181:36–9. 16 Welsh CH, Pedot R, Anderson RJ. Use of morning report to enhance adverse event detection. J Gen Intern Med 1996;11:454–60. 17 Vincent C, Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M. Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract 1999;5:13–21. 18 Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, et al. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995;163:458–71. 19 Thomas EJ, Studdert DM, Burstin HR, et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000;38:261–71. 20 Uribe CL, Schweikhart SB, Pathak DS, et al. Perceived barriers to medicalerror reporting: an exploratory investigation. J Healthc Manag 2002;47:263–79. 21 Lawton R, Parker D. Barriers to incident reporting in a healthcare system. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:15–8. 22 Eland IA, Belton KJ, van Grootheest AC, et al. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;48:623–7. 23 Firth-Cozens J. Barriers to incident reporting. Qual Health Care 2002;11:7. 24 Elnitsky C, Nichols B, Palmer K. Are hospital incidents being reported? J Nurs Admin 1997;27:40–6. 25 Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edition. California, US: Sage Publications, 2003. 26 Richardson S, Allen J. Casualization of the nursing workforce: a New Zealand perspective on an international phenomenon. Int J Nurs Prac 2001;7:104–8. 27 Bent PD, Bolsin SN, Creati BJ, et al. Professional monitoring and critical incident reporting using personal digital assistants. Med J Aust 2002;177:496–9. 28 Evans S. Evaluation of an incident reporting to improve hospital systems (IRIS) project, April 2003. Available at http://www.safetyandquality.sa.gov.au/ site/page.cfm?area_id = 10&nav_id = 506 (accessed 25 October 2005). 29 New South Wales Department of Health. Patient Safety and Clinical Quality Program: First Report on Incident Management in the NSW Public Health System 2003–2004. NSW, Australia: NSW Department of Health, 2005, Available at http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2005/ incident_mgmnt.html (accessed 25 October 2005). Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting 43 www---- the text book is canadian essentials of nursing research third edition by carmen g loiselle, joanne profetto-mcgrath, and polit & beck- please email me the paper-do not submit it!! You are logged in as Stacey Williams (Logout)
NURSING ARTICLE CRITIQUEName:Grade Course:Tutor`s Name:(19 April 2012)Substantive and Theoretical DimensionsThe aim of these critique paper is to criticize a qualitative article called Attitudes and Barriers to Incident Reporting: a Collaborative Hospital Study by S M Evans et al. The problem that this study tried to solve is the problem that has been affecting the doctors` fraternity as well as the community as a whole. Due to the fact that doctors and nurses deal with delicate human life, this study is very relevant it tries to come up with ways through which doctors can use to prevent incident reporting to ensure that all errors are reported and documented to prevent future occurrences. As an effect, this problem is very important to health professionals as it helps in coming up with factors inhibiting reporting of incidences in hospitals. In case this study is not carried, there are chances that in most hospitals and health centers, things will continue as they are, hence errors will continue occurring as there are no records to indicate if they have been occurring or not, and most people will continue losing their lives on as a result of events that could have been prevented in case there were records to show the occurrence of the event. Moreover, this can be prevented if factors inhibiting reporting of incidents are known and prevented.Apart from having a relevant research problem, this article has outlined an appropriate theoretical framework as it has the ability to help the reader make logical senses of the relationships between variables as well as factors that seem important to the problem. The researchers used the theoretical framework when defining between all the variables in a manner that any reader can understand the theorized relationships between variables. More so, the theoretical framework in this article has explained the factors that the researcher intended to measure. For instance, the theoretical framework shows that the researchers were to l...

Price: £ 99

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions