"Nurses’ Use of Water-Filled Gloves in Preventing Heel Pressure Ulcer" is an engrossing example of a paper on care. Is the setting appropriate for addressing the research question, and is it adequately described? The setting of the research was in the surgical units as well as the neurosciences units in the university hospital which is appropriate as they deal with the water-filled gloves. “ … nurses from the neuroscience and surgical units of the hospital because they are in a position to use WFGs on patients vulnerable to tissue breakdown of the heel (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” a.
What type of sampling strategy was used? The research used a purposive sampling technique which was purposely targeting the nurses working in the surgical as well as neuroscience units Fowler, 2009). The purposive sampling employed the use of 250 sample nurses. Are sampling procedures clearly delineated? The sampling procedure was just simply mentioned to have been used but not delineated how exactly it was employed. “ Purposive sampling was used to select nurses from the neuroscience and surgical units… (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010)” a. Were the eligibility criteria for the study specified? There were no eligibility criteria mentioned as per se in the article as the target was simply on the nurses who worked in the university hospital and dealt with patients with heel ulcers using water-filled gloves and this only happened in the two units mentioned above. How were participants recruited into the study? The participants who were recruited were those nurses who were available and willing to participate in the study and they met the criteria of using the WFGs to treat their patients.
“ All the available and willing nurses in the inpatient wards of the two units and who met the inclusion criteria constitute the study participants (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” Did the recruitment strategy yield information-rich participants? According to the results, the participants cannot be said to be information-rich as only a few percentages had a degree with the majority being just registered nurses.
The majority had received no training about the WFGs and only used them because they found the rest of the nurses using them hence could not explain the inspiration behind the idea. a. Given the information needs of the study— and, if applicable, its qualitative tradition— was the sampling approach appropriate? The sampling technique employed was not an appropriate approach as the people who took part were those that did not have in-depth knowledge of the procedure (Denise & Beck, 2013).
The most appropriate methods would have been snowballing from one experienced nurse of the procedure and among the original implementers of the technique to the other for rich information (Lapan, Quartaroli & Riemer, 2011). Are dimensions of the phenomenon under study adequately represented? The study dimensions did not delve into much detail about the history of the method which would have made the study adequate and maybe even more possible for the method to be adopted by others (Bryman, 2012).
The only mention was that patients before getting the treatment had to undergo a physical examination and risk assessments “ physical examination and risk assessment on patients were carried out… before the use of WFG (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” a. Is the sample size adequate and appropriate? Did the researcher indicate that saturation had been achieved? The sample size is very minimal and hence the data got cannot be adequately generalized or replicated (Silverman, 2010).
There was no indication of any saturation but it can be deduced that those were the only available nurses. Do the findings suggest a richly textured and comprehensive set of data without any apparent “ holes” or thin areas? The findings have holes and this is evident from the quotation “ The majority of the participants estimated that the use of WFGs is contributory to 21-40% reduction in heel PU (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” The data is all based on estimates hence the ‘ holes. ’ a. Are key characteristics of the sample described (e. g., age, gender)? The key characteristics of the sample are very well described from the age, gender, and even the educational qualification with the frequency and percentage of each variable being provided as well.
“ The age group 26-30 years had the highest frequency of 72 (28.8%). They were predominantly females, 248 (97.2%) with only 21 (8.4%) respondents having Bachelor of Nursing Science (Adejumo & Ingwu, 2010). ” Is a rich description of participants and context provided, allowing for an assessment of the transferability of the findings? The transferability of the findings is possible but will only provide the basics of the data from the variable to the data based on only 250 nurses.
Adejumo, P. & Ingwu, J. (2010). Nurses’ use of water-filled gloves in preventing heel pressure ulcer in University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. International Wound Journal, 7(6): 472-479.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Denise, P. & Beck, C. (2013). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Fowler, F. (2009). Survey Research Methods. New York: SAGE Publications.
Lapan, S., Quartaroli, M. & Riemer, F. (2011). Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Methods and Designs. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Silverman, D. (2010). Qualitative Research. New Jersey: SAGE.