A Critique of the Qualitative Research Essay

Beatrice J. Kalisch, PhD, RN, FAAN, reports her soft theme Missed confine C atomic number 18 on medical-surgical units in the diary of Nursing C atomic number 18 Quality. In the article, Nursing Care A Qualitative Study, the investigator helps us understand what care for help regularly helpless on medical-surgical unit and what are the reasons breast feeding rung give for not complementary these aspects of care. The referee depart examine her habituate of grounded theory soft enquiry mode based on the guidelines provided by Geri LoBiondo-Wood and Judith Haber (2014). This enquiry report will be analyzed using the criteria found in the Critiquing Criteria box on p. 135-136 in Nursing question Methods and Critical judgement for Evidence-Based Practice.Statement of the Phenomenon of involutionIn Research Methods and Critical appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, the composes define phenomena as those things that are perceived by our senses (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 20 14). The query sort outly states the phenomenon of internet in the introduction, unique(predicate) aspects of nursing care mazed routinely and nursing staff reasons wherefore these elements of care are prioritized as less important than otherwises (Kalisch, 2006, p. 306). Beatrice Kalisch (2006) utilise the soft research method be consume the she had to discover information about her phenomenon from nurses get words in their medical-surgical units.Kalisch (2006) explained, A literature search revealed a lack of studies about The specific aspects of lost nursing care and the association amongst less staffing and the negative outcomes (Kalisch, 2006, p. 306). The investigator realizes current relationship between nursing staff and poor forbearing outcomes. Kalisch found there was a gap and motiveed to discover what the wanting nursing care was and why it is deficient. Kalisch helps her audience understand the philosophical underpinnings by explaining the utility of grou nded theory in phenomenalsense making. The beginnings of Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice differentiate ground theory from other qualitative research methods by stating that ground theory think on motion. The research identifies the appendage elements of her phenomenon rather than just describing it (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p.153).PurposeKalisch tells the reader the purpose in her start line of her abstract which is to determine nursing care regularly missed on medical-surgical units and reason for missed care (Kalisch, 2006, p. 306). ). Kalisch conveyed to the reader, Ensuring quality nursing care and patient safety is a major challenge facing nurses and nurse leaders today (Kalisch, 2006, p. 306). Thus, this research is done to discover what can interpolate nursing practice to ensure better patient outcomes.MethodThe agents of Research Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice defines grounded theory as different types of qual itative research method in that it goes beyond the traditional methods of phenomenology and ethnography, which focus on the process that is at the heart of the inquiry (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p.154). According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), grounded theory method was developed originally as a sociologists tool and Denzin and capital of Nebraska (1998) add researchersuse the grounded theory method when they are interested in social process from the perspective of human interactions (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 116). Kalisch analyzed social process among nurses who are divided by job title into focus groups. She right use grounded theory method to discover the phenomenon and collect data for the verbalize purpose. However, it is unclear if the study followed the guidelines of the grounded theory method.SamplingIn Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice, LoBiondo-Wood and Haber (2014) explains In qualitative studies, the researchers are usually looking for purposive samplinga particular kind of person who can illuminate the phenomenon they want to study (p. 100). The reader exists Kalisch (2006) purpose is about the views of nurses on medical-surgical units, and the author does interviews with A total of 107 registered nurses, 15 licensed practical nurses, and 51 nursing assistants, working inmedical-surgical patient care units from ii different hospitals (Kalisch, 2006, p. 306).These nurses live the experiences of missed nursing care and can shed light on why care is missed on medical-surgical unit therefore, they are an appropriate precedent for this phenomenon of study. However, Kalisch could made a stronger sample for the grounded theory method if she included the dustup purposive sample , explained why this group of nursing staff was chosen, and abandoned details about the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the sample (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 100).Data solicitationThe description of data collection lacks details in Kalisch (2006). The reader knows the author interviewed 25 focus groups using semistructured design and each interview lasted 90-120 minutes and the interviewees were asked to commit to confidentiality (Kalisch, 2006, p. 306-7). The data collection did include human experience which was the nursing staff. Though the author states asking the interviewees to commit to confidentiality, but this is not luxuriant to protect them from disclosure. In addition, data saturation isnt confirmed and bittie known about the data collection process. The author should have verbalize during the interviews nothing new is emerging (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 101). Further more(prenominal), the author should included clues about questions that were asked and if anything quiet from the interviews focused her study.Data AnalysisThe author used qualitative compend software to apply a grounded theory approach by which experiential data are thematically categorized by induction (Kalisch, 2006, p. 307). in that location are two analyses of the tape-recorded, fully transcribed interviews, and to be included as a theme, supporting data had to be contained in all of the focus groups (Kalisch, 2006, p. 307). The reader identifies the research to be true to data because, as the two analyses extracted the same issues from the empirical material (Kalischp. 307). Trustworthiness, known as rigor for qualitative research, is established through credibility, auditability, and fittingness, none of which is communicated by Kalisch (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 126). Credibility requires that the informants recognize the experience to be their own (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 155). The author never discussedtaking the themes obtained from the interviews back to the nurses to cede the interviewees the luck to confirm the findings. Nor does the author give any indication that nice time was allowed for full understanding of the phenomenon.Auditability requires that others, not en gaged in the research, be able to follow the auditrial of the primary researcher (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 155). The author should have expound data saturation as mentioned previously. In the data analyses section of Kalisch (2006) the author mentioned grounded theory method was used for extraction of themes from the interviews. However, the reader doesnt know the systematic process used, if there was open coding and constant comparative method (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 117). The neglect of giving the step-by-step process inhibits the readers ability to follow the thinking of the researcher.Fittingness is the criterion that provides the reader with an opportunity to determine the usefulness of the data outside of the study (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p.156). The reader knows the author chose grounded theory method appropriately for the purpose of Kalisch (2006) however, because of missing information the reader is unsure if this is study is repeated in other hospit als or other units if the same themes would evolve (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2014, p. 117-120). If the author gave the systematic process the study could be replicated. This necessary information would allow wider application to other professions.FindingsThe author gives large(p) details in the findings section of Kalisch (2006) allowing the reader to apprehend the essences of the experience (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2010, p. 130). hold of quotes from the interviews allowed the reader to understand how the themes emerged (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2010, p. 108). The authors conceptualizations are sincere to the findings. The golf club elements of regularly missed nursing careand 7 themes relative to the reasons for missing this care described in Kalisch (2006) abstract is clearly defined end-to-end the findings section (p. 306-310). Additionally, in the discussion section the author relates the findings to the literature surveil (Kalisch, 2006, p. 310-311). The author discussed how ot her research corroborated these findings and many studies have pointed to the relationship between number of patients per nurse andnegative outcomes (Kalisch, 2006, p. 311).Conclusions, Implications, and RecommendationsIn the implication section, the author expresses the use of her findings to change nursing practice and decrease the problem of missed nursing care (Kalisch, 2006, p. 312). The author continues to maintain confidence about her findings in the conclusion, it is clear that nurses are often distracted for careand should be engaged in delegation training and performance follow-up (Kalisch, 2006, p. 312). Yet, the author declares a drive for further research because only 2 facilities were studied and additional studies are needed to determine the validity of these findings (Kalisch, 2006, p. 312). The author recommends implications for nursing practice by the details to examine this phenomenon on their unit by doing root cause and other analysesto determine the causes of the problem and strategies to address them (Kalisch, 2006, p. 312). Plus, the author gives suggestions about increase of a tool to measure missed care and questions to answer in future research.After scrutiny of Kalisch (2006) the reader has an understanding the author used qualitative, grounded theory method to study missed nursing care and staff reasons why they were missed. However, before application of these findings the reader should conduct more research and more analyses because Kalisch (2006) findings are not conclusive. Also, the reader would have to do more literature review or even contact author if mathematical to gain more knowledge about her process of sampling, collection and analyses so the study can be repeated and validity of the findings can be affirmed.ReferencesDenzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory Strategies for qualitative re search. Chicago, IL Aldine. Kalisch, B.J. (2006). Missed Nursing Care A qualitative study. Journal of nursing care quality, 21(4), 306-13. LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014). Nursing research Methods and critical appraisal for usher based practice (8th ed.). St. Louis, MO Mosby-Elsevier.