"Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia" is a wonderful example of a paper on the respiratory system. According to the article, ventilator-associated Pneumonia is found in an average of 12 to 33.8% infected patients whose conditions are perceived as critical. The above statement cannot be dismissed, but it lacks specific figures since the writer made the comments in generality. Some facts and findings should have been used to ascertain the exact digits or status of infection so as to give the reader an easy time for interpretation and to avoid speculation of the results.
Moreover, the introductory part of the article appears to be vague since it goes ahead to explain how ventilator-associated Pneumonia and related infection can be prevented. Most of all, it happens without giving various measures or mechanisms that can be sued to avert such a situation (Janssen et al. 2013). Readers have been redirected to a table that shows the outcomes of the prevention. However, it is a premature way of initiating a discussion especially for a survey of a special disorder such as pneumonia that requires a critical understanding.
Instead, readers should have been given insight and more detailed information concerning ventilator-associated Pneumonia so as to get proper knowledge of what is yet to be discussed in the survey article. The introductory part has also revisited some previous research that is targeted at preventing ventilator-associated Pneumonia. However, such an illustration would add more weight when it is discussed as part of the literature review (Janssen et al. 2013). As such, the introduction part should have been left for a discussion of the issue as the source of the condition and brief statistics on how the condition affects the patients.
Meanwhile, the introductory part of the article is fairly good and the ready can easily understand the writer's concept of the delivery. Data collection Since the research is a qualitative type of study, the article demonstrates the best data collection techniques and the researcher is worth being uploaded for that. Besides, the researcher has employed the use of multiple questionnaires that is considered one of the best ways of extracting information from a correspondent. However, the illustration is too brief, and further expansion concerning the type of questionnaire used could have been given to reducing the response time and speculations of veracity (Janssen et al.
2013). From the research article, it has been pointed out that nursing staff from the intensive care unit formed part of the participants. Therefore, questionnaires were supplied to all the staff within that unit. Based on the opinion, distributing questionnaires to all the staff within the ICU fraternity is not justified because it creates a bigger sample size hence lead to duplication of figures during the interpretation of the results.
Moreover, the principle of inductive content analysis that was used to analyze barriers encountered during the survey consumes a lot of consumption hence requires a research expert (Janssen et al. 2013). Ultimately, questionnaires were tested by participatory nurses prior to the actual research that was considered a brilliant idea. However, carrying out sample tests with participants who do not form part of the actual survey can be misleading because it is susceptible to inaccurate results. As such, sample test could have been carried by nurses from the intensive care unit since they were deemed vital for the actual survey. Data management and analysis As part of data analysis, the article embraced the use of SPSS with descriptive statistics that is vital in the analysis of the demographics and alleviating of barriers.
Conversely, it deters the studies from achieving their ultimate objective. Contrary to the application of the above packages, the nursing practice was not fully addressed putting into consideration that the survey was meant for comprehensive of Pneumonia. In addition, the analysis does not have proper links to the research questions (Rollo, 2007). The analysis of the results contains ideas of nursing generalization perceived as an accurate concept in the interpretation of the nursing concept.
However, it is coupled with several barriers including resource disagreements from the previous research and inadequate time for other scholars' analysis (Rollo, 2007). It is very important to understand that the discussion was conducted only in one of the hospitals based University. As such, it is quite difficult, to sum up, the results while putting into consideration that prevalence may vary from one area to the other.
It has also been clarified that the applicable model in the study embraced only practitioners with experience of 5 to 10 years. As such, it limits the sample size including those who have not attained an experience of 5 years but may have valid information concerning ventilator-associated Pneumonia. Findings and interpretations From the graphical interpretation of the test scores, there is a clear indication that quality criteria must have been followed in the survey study. Besides, there is a representation of how hygiene disinfectants such as alcohol were embraced as part of the previous publication.
However, it has minimal effect in accordance with the current study. As such, it is considered a misplaced priority. Despite the presence of tabular and graphical interpretation, the impacts of the survey are not been fully discussed and are characterized by numerous weaknesses such as knowledge employed by a critical care nurse at the intensive care unit. Ultimately, the paper has not disclosed nursing guidelines that attribute to knowledge and skills that are vital for the translation of the research findings (Rollo, 2007). Conclusion Similar to most of the research studies, the ventilator-associated Pneumonia survey has also employed conclusion remarks to aid the summary of the paper.
However, the remark is too brief and has not incorporated all the relevant aspects that have been discussed throughout the article. It is also clear to note that it lacks the element of the literature review. The conclusion chapter also lacks a summary of the ethical discussion thus making it difficult for the reader to draw remarks. Ultimately, the survey is characterized by numerous discrepancies hence it is advisable for the writer to redraft the article so as to me the quality criteria.
Janssen, M., Ala-Kokako, T., Ylipalosaari, P., Syrjälä, H., & Kyngäs, H. (2013). Critical care nurses’ knowledge of, adherence to, and barriers towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia–A survey study. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 29(4), 216-227.
Rollo, J. (2007). Nosocomial pneumonia: Strategies for management. Chichester, England: J. Wiley.