Need Help With This Assignment?

Let Our Team of Professional Writers Write a PLAGIARISM-FREE Paper for You!

SUBMIT YOUR ASSIGNMENT

Essay, Nursing, Pages: 3

Identifying Research Methodologies

Identifying Research Methodologies

Matrix Worksheet Template

Use this document to complete Part 1 of the Module 2 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

Full citation of selected article Article #1 Article #2 Article #3 Article #4
Rababa, M., Bani Hamad, D., & Hayajneh, A. A. (2022). Sepsis assessment and management in critically Ill adults: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 17(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270711: Identifying Research Methodologies

 

 

 

 Duncan, C. F., Youngstein, T., Kirrane, M. D., & Lonsdale, D. O. (2021). Diagnostic Challenges in Sepsis. Current Infectious Disease Reports, 23(12), 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-021-00765-y

 

 Weiss, S. L., Peters, M. J., Alhazzani, W., Agus, M. S. D., Flori, H. R., Inwald, D. P., Nadel, S., Schlapbach, L. J., Tasker, R. C., Argent, A. C., Brierley, J., Carcillo, J., Carrol, E. D., Carroll, C. L., Cheifetz, I. M., Choong, K., Cies, J. J., Cruz, A. T., De Luca, D., & Deep, A. (2020). Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children. Intensive Care Medicine, 46(S1), 10–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05878-6

 

 Santacroce, E., D’Angerio, M., Alin Liviu Ciobanu, Masini, L., Domenico Lo Tartaro, Coloretti, I., Stefano Busani, Rubio, I., Meschiari, M., Franceschini, E., Mussini, C., Massimo Girardis, Gibellini, L., Cossarizza, A., & Sara De Biasi. (2024). Advances and Challenges in Sepsis Management: Modern Tools and Future Directions. Cells, 13(5), 439–439. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells13050439

 
Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest) This article focuses on the critical importance of early diagnosis and treatment of sepsis, specifically examining how delays in care impact 30-day mortality. Its quantitative approach and emphasis on emergency department workflows make it highly relevant to evidence-based strategies for sepsis management. Ethical considerations include proper use and anonymization of patient data from electronic health records. This article addresses critical diagnostic challenges in sepsis, focusing on how these challenges can delay diagnosis and treatment. These challenges are a key barrier to improving outcomes in sepsis care. Ethical considerations included safeguarding participant confidentiality while collecting sensitive clinical data and ensuring the integrity of patient information. This article focuses on the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children, providing evidence-based guidelines specifically tailored to pediatric patients. Ethical considerations included adhering to rigorous evidence evaluation processes and prioritizing interventions that address children’s unique physiological needs. This article addresses recent advancements in diagnostic tools and treatment strategies for sepsis management, which are essential for improving outcomes. Ethical considerations included the responsible use of emerging technologies and the application of informed consent in experimental clinical settings.
Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article The study aimed to evaluate associations between the timeliness of diagnostic procedures, the administration of antibiotics, and 30-day all-cause mortality among patients presenting with sepsis in emergency departments. The research aimed to explore the barriers clinicians face when diagnosing sepsis, including the complexities of recognizing its symptoms and the limitations of diagnostic tools. By identifying these barriers, the study sought to propose strategies to improve diagnostic accuracy. The study aimed to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pediatric septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction, synthesizing data from various high-quality studies to establish actionable recommendations. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of new diagnostic tools and therapeutic approaches in the management of sepsis, highlighting both current challenges and future directions for improving care.
Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. This study used a quantitative observational methodology to analyze data from the electronic health records of 24 Norwegian hospitals. The researchers collected measurable data points, including time to triage, time to antibiotic administration, and patient mortality rates. Statistical methods were applied to assess the relationship between diagnostic delays and patient outcomes. The research undertaken in this study involved a qualitative approach to analyzing clinical case scenarios and the stance of experts in the field. Data from clinicians were obtained using semi-structured interviews with clinicians and analysis of cases of sepsis diagnosis. Thematic coding was then used to describe patterns of the data, such as the frequent challenges faced in diagnosing sepsis. This research employed quantitative guideline development from clinical trials as well as an expert opinion consensus. The process of development involved the qualitative synthesis of data derived from RCTs, observational studies, and other clinical research in pediatric septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction.

The quantitative data collected were quantified and graded on a numerical system. For example, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) was used to determine the quality of evidence that supports each proposal. Professionals also participated in the guideline formulation through a consensus approach, which employs a well-coordinated method to address any disagreement over the analysis of the synthesized quantitative data. This approach helps make the guidelines evidence-based while dealing with controversies in which adequate data may not abound.

 A mixed-methods approach was used in this study, combining quantitative data on the accuracy and effectiveness of new diagnostic tools with qualitative data from healthcare professionals about their experiences using these tools. Quantitative data were obtained through clinical trials and laboratory tests, while qualitative data were gathered from interviews and focus groups with clinicians.
A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected. Observational studies provide real-world insights into care processes and outcomes, making the findings highly applicable to clinical settings. (Mak & Thomas, 2022). The large sample size and the inclusion of several hospitals make the findings more ambulatory and have wide applicability. A significant degree of reliability is maintained by setting quantifiable goals such as mortality and the timelines of the treatments undergoing the study. Nonetheless, the analysis of the study is constrained by the fact that all the data effectively reviewed were recorded in the past in a retrospective manner. The qualitative approach is the most suitable for gaining an understanding of contextually sensitive questions, such as clinical judgment (Jowsey et al., 2021). The use of thematic analysis helped shape how the main barriers and challenges could be ascertained. This approach enabled the researchers to collect vivid, detailed information about the diagnostic process that can be easily overlooked in quantitative studies.

Nonetheless, the study faces limitations due to the small number of samples and circumstances employed, which limits how far they can be generalized. However, as this paper has shown, in its focus on more realistic diagnostic cases, there is still much data worth analyzing and learning from.

 The use of expert consensus, along with the Delphi method, guarantees that both the best evidence and the practitioners’ knowledge are involved in the development of the guidelines (Nasa et al., 2021). This methodology is particularly appropriate for pediatric sepsis scenarios where high-quality research evidence may be scarce. The Delphi process procedure is repeated, improving the outcome because participants can adjust their judgments according to feedback from other panel members.

This approach enhances external validation by recommending relevant interventions within different practices. Thus, the use of the expert’s opinion adds the subjectivity component, which can be minimized by incorporating the data from clinical trials, as was done in the course of this study.

 Mixed method research hybridizes the qualities of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative part affords statistical validity, with which tool efficiency can be evaluated, while the qualitative part adds richness by giving the clinician’s perspective. (Noyes et al., 2019) This integration of data affords stronger support for the study’s conclusions while improving their face, internal, and external validities and the reliability of the results regarding technical performance and practical relevance.
General Notes/Comments The evidence in this article is strongly in favor of diagnosing and treating sepsis early. The outcomes of its surveys can be applied substantively to guiding the ED’s practices they stress the importance of early intervention. Subsequent research could examine how certain approaches affect the time taken to receive a diagnosis.

 

 

 

 

 In this article, there is use of knowledge that is presented in professional literature together with professional experience to meet the requirements concerning sepsis in children. The findings of the report are useful for a wide range of healthcare organizations, irrespective of the country they operate in. It would, therefore, be useful for future work to apply these guidelines in additional clinical investigations of resources from multiple centers. This article illustrates that the optimal care for sepsis in children is possible through blending the available knowledge and empirical evidence for pediatric distinctive problems. It provides recommendations that are relevant to any healthcare delivery system. Future work can further be done on verifying these guidelines through clinical trials across several centers. This article highlights how sepsis care might benefit from new technologies in the near future. The study incorporates the clinician feedback by checking whether these advancements are not only beneficial but also feasible in a general setting. Further research in this area could look at the applications of these tools in terms of the cost of implementation as well as the size for which these tools are appropriate.

 

References

Duncan, C. F., Youngstein, T., Kirrane, M. D., & Lonsdale, D. O. (2021). Diagnostic Challenges in Sepsis. Current Infectious Disease Reports, 23(12), 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-021-00765-y

Jowsey, T., Deng, C., & Weller, J. (2021). General-purpose Thematic analysis: a Useful Qualitative Method for Anaesthesia Research. BJA Education, 21(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjae.2021.07.006

Mak, S., & Thomas, A. (2022). An Introduction to Scoping Reviews. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 14(5), 561–564. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-22-00620.1

Nasa, P., Jain, R., & Juneja, D. (2021). Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World Journal of Methodology, 11(4), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116

Noyes, J., Booth, A., Moore, G., Flemming, K., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: Clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(1). NCBI. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000893

Rababa, M., Bani Hamad, D., & Hayajneh, A. A. (2022). Sepsis assessment and management in critically Ill adults: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 17(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270711

Santacroce, E., D’Angerio, M., Alin Liviu Ciobanu, Masini, L., Domenico Lo Tartaro, Coloretti, I., Stefano Busani, Rubio, I., Meschiari, M., Franceschini, E., Mussini, C., Massimo Girardis, Gibellini, L., Cossarizza, A., & Sara De Biasi. (2024). Advances and Challenges in Sepsis Management: Modern Tools and Future Directions. Cells, 13(5), 439–439. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells13050439

Weiss, S. L., Peters, M. J., Alhazzani, W., Agus, M. S. D., Flori, H. R., Inwald, D. P., Nadel, S., Schlapbach, L. J., Tasker, R. C., Argent, A. C., Brierley, J., Carcillo, J., Carrol, E. D., Carroll, C. L., Cheifetz, I. M., Choong, K., Cies, J. J., Cruz, A. T., De Luca, D., & Deep, A. (2020). Surviving sepsis campaign international guidelines for the management of septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction in children. Intensive Care Medicine, 46(S1), 10–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05878-6

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question

Module 2: Assignment

Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?


When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.


Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.


Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?


In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES

To Prepare:

  • Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.
  • Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
  • Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer reviewed research.
  • Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

  • The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
  • A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
  • A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
  • A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
  • A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

    Identifying Research Methodologies

    Identifying Research Methodologies

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 3 
Submit your Evidence-Based Project.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD2Assgn+last name+first initial
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Required Readings