Critical Appraisal of Research Papers on Patient Safety

Introduction

The critical appraisal can be defined as the systematic and in-depth evaluation of the validity, believability and authenticity of the database of any selected research papers (Long et al. 2020). This study is going to present the critical appraisal of two selected research papers, one qualitative ” A grounded theory of creating space for open safety communication between hospitalized patients and nurses” written by Groves et al. (2021) and another one is the quantitative paper “Patient safety: Knowledge and attitudes of medical and nursing students” written by Svitlica et al. (2021). If you require assistance with crucial appraisal or guidance with your research, then you can consider seeking UK dissertation help for expert support.

In the modern nursing field, the quality of patients’ safety depends on how effectively nurses can recognise and respond to the safety needs of patients (Purssell, 2020). There is anecdotal evidence that suggests that patient safety is under crisis in the modern nursing field due to various factors such as lack of nursing skill and professional knowledge, poor training to nurses regarding maintaining patients’ safety, lack of effective communication between nurses and patients and poor safety framework in hospital and community care homes (Howar, 2021). In recent years nurses face several barriers as well as negative experiences while meeting patients’ safety which raises questions on the professional accountability as well as professional integrity of nursing professionals towards their clients. These barriers to patients’ safety are lack of competition from patients, poor communication skills of nursing professionals, poor support from senior healthcare professionals and ethical dilemmas and burnout of nurses. As mentioned by Buccheri and Sharifi (2017), while it comes to promoting a high level of patients’ safety, it is important to improve the attitude and knowledge of nursing students towards the way they will interact and communicate with patients regarding their safety needs. For meeting all safety needs, nurses need to consider many factors such as effective communication, proper health assessment of patients regularly, ensuring safeguarding for vulnerable patients, maintaining transparent information delivery in patients ward and conducting early recognition and responding to patient’s safety needs (Williams et al. 2020). As stated by Howar (2021), patient’s safety is solely dependent on whether nurses timely recognise and respond to the health and safety needs of patients. PHE (2019), mentioned that there are many cases in which patients die due to the delayed detection of their health deterioration of patents (Hallas et al. 2021).

In this context, the critical appraisal of the two selected research papers is highly appropriate and relevant to the modern nursing context, which will provide new insight into how nursing professionals can improve patients’ safety (Carpenter and Glasper, 2021). By appraising the research data of two selected research papers, this critical appraisal will analyse how much these two research papers are useful for providing evidence-based information regarding maintaining an effective and strong patent safety framework. Moreover, this critical analysis will also analyse the limitations and strengths of these two selected research papers in relation to providing useful guidelines to modern nursing professionals to respond to the safety needs of their patients (Zuzelo, 2019). This study will first present a critical appraisal of two research papers in which it will use relevant resources for comparing and evaluating the validity and authenticity of the database of these selected research papers.

This study will use the CASP tool by Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. And Ryan, F. (2007), for critically appraising these two selected research papers. CASP tool by Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. And Ryan, F. (2007) is one of the convenient and trustworthy critical appraisal tools that many researchers use to evaluate the trustworthiness, validity and authenticity of any research paper. After presenting the critical appraisal, this study will draw a conclusion in which it will summarise the main aspect of the entire discussion.

Critical appraisal of two papers:

Out of the two selected research papers, one is the qualitative paper" A grounded theory of creating space for open safety communication between hospitalized patients and nurses” written by Groves et al. (2021) and another one is the quantitative paper “Patient safety: Knowledge and attitudes of medical and nursing students” written by Svitlica et al. (2021). This research study is going to use the CASP tool by Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. And Ryan, F. (2007), for checking the validity, believability and authenticity of these two selected research papers (Long et al. 2020). CASP tool by Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. And Ryan, F. (2007), consists of a checklist for both the qualitative and quantitative research study. Under each checklist for the qualitative or quantitative research study, there are many criteria, which researchers need to consider systematically for judging and analysing the validity and authenticity of any research paper. In modern clinical research, the CASP tool by Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. And Ryan, F. (2007), is highly useful that enables the researcher to conduct evidence-based research for analysing the authenticity of each research element of a research paper.

According to the CASP tool by Coughlan et al. (2007), while it comes to conducting a critical analysis of a research paper, the first thing that researcher needs to consider is the relevance of the academic skills and professional qualification of authors of selected research papers. In this context, Weiss et al. (2021) mentioned that the believability of any research article depends on whether authors of this research paper possess the academic degree and academic qualification that are required for making this research study valid and authentic. On a positive note, the two selected qualitative and quantitative research articles by Groves et al. (2021) and Svitlica et al. (2021) respectively have highly skilled authors who have the required professional knowledge, academic degree da qualifications that are relevant to conduct the study. For the research article by Groves et al. (2021), all the authors such as Patricia S. Groves, acinda L. Bunch, Kaitlin E. Cannava, Kathryn A. Sabadosa and Janet K. Williams have requited degrees ad qualifications in the nursing field. On the other hand, in the quantitative study by Svitlica et al. (2021), all of the five authors possess a professional degree from nurse colleges and universities, which ensure the believability and authenticity of the study (Fineout-Overholt, 2019). As mentioned by Rosettenstein et al. (2021), during critical appraisal of any research paper, the researcher needs to ask the question that whether the researchers have the qualification that can present the degree of knowledge on the concerned field. On a positive note, these two research papers by Svitlica et al. (2021) and Groves et al. (2021) have successfully answered all the questions regarding the qualification, skill and professional knowledge of authors in the nursing field. In this context, it can be stated authors’ professional skills, knowledge and academic qualification in the nursing field maintain the validity, authenticity and rigour of these two research papers. In this context, it can be stated that the two selected research paper by are able to present author’s credibility and professional skill in carrying out these research study.

After analysing the academic qualification of authors of a selected research paper, the second element that the researcher needs to consider based on the CASP tool by Coughlan et al. (2007), is the research title. As mentioned by Weiss et al. (2021), on any valid research paper there must be a proper research title that can provide an idea to learners regarding the background and objective of the research study. In the qualitative study conducted by Groves et al. (2021), the title “A grounded theory of creating space for open safety communication between hospitalized patients and nurses" is highly appropriate and relevant to the aspect of the subject that this research paper discusses in this main body. The title of this research paper clearly states that the research study is about the importance of creating open and transparent communication between nurses and hospitalised patients to improve patients’ safety. The quantitative research paper by Svitlica et al. (2021) has the title “Patient safety: Knowledge and attitudes of medical and nursing students” which highlights the background, aim of the research study. From this title, it is clear that researchers have conducted this study to show the importance of the development and implementation of patients' safety classes for the nursing student regarding maintaining a high level of patients’ safety. As mentioned by Fineout-Overholt (2019) an unambiguous research title can reflect the main points of the research paper. Both the qualitative and quantitative research papers have a highly valid, clear and appropriate title which not only give a clear idea of the study background also enable learners to make an idea of the purpose of the research study.

According to the CASP tool by Coughlan et al. (2007), after checking the genuineness of a research title, a critical analysis of a research paper is to be done to analyse the characteristics and phenomenology of the research paper. As mentioned by Dodd et al. (2020), the characteristics of research study determine the believability and rigour of the research study. Phenomenology of a research study can be defined as the research design that researcher highlights by using statistical and theoretical information. The qualitative research paper by Groves et al. (2021), the phenomenon of interest is that how effective as well as open communication can be created between nurses and hospitalised patients’ in terms of detecting the safety needs of patients. Moreover, this study also highlights the barriers and facilitators that are associated with maintaining effective communication with patients in relation to promoting a high level of patient safety. In this regard, this qualitative research study has successfully presented its phenomenology of interest which enhances its believability as well; as trustworthiness.

In quantitative research paper written by Svitlica et al. ( 2021), the phenomenology of interest is also clear which highlights the importance of implementation as well as the development of the patient safety course for student nurses in terms of improving the skill in responding effectively to patient safety. As stated by Ferreira and Patino (2018), a good research paper must represent the major phenomenon or characteristics of the research study which helps reader to understand the purpose, aim as well as objectives of the research study. On a positive note, these two research study by Groves et al. (2021) and Svitlica et al. (2021) have presented a clear phenomenon of interest ad characteristic features that enhance the authenticity and trustworthiness.

According to the CASP tool by Coughlan et al. (2007), the next element that needs to be analysed while critically appraising research paper is purpose of the study. As mentioned by Fineout-Overholt (2019), a good research study present a clear ad cosies purpose which reflects on why the research study is undertaken and accomplished by researchers. The qualitative research paper by Groves et al. (2021) has mentioned its aim in which described that this study aims to identify the importance of creating enough space for conducting effective and open communication between nursing professionals and patients hospitals. The purpose of this study is clear which highlights the main objectives based on which the study is conducted. As mentioned by Hallas et al. (2021), a clear purpose not only discusses its aim but also discuss the significance and the scope of the study, the research study by Groves et al. (2021) presents an accurate and clear purpose which reflect on how significant as well as appropriate is this research study to the current context of patients safety in the nursing field.

On the other hand, the quantitative research paper by Svitlica et al. (2021) also presents a clear purpose that provides an insight into which this study has been conducted. By analysing this research paper, it is clear that the major point of this research study is to check the importance of implementation of patients’ safety course for developing the required skills and professional knowledge in nursing professionals to improve their ability to ensure patients safety in their practice (Jayachandran et al. 2021). Additionally, this research paper also presents the accurate and authentic purpose of the research study which enables learners to find out the significance ad future scope of this study.

The next research element that needs to be considered while critically appraising any research article, is a literature review. As stated by Long et al. (2020), a literature review is a systemic process of evaluating, comparing, contrasting and summarising the previous evidence on any particular research topic. A concise literature review will present evidence-based information regarding the research topic (Naidoo et al. 2020). In this study, the qualitative research article by Groves et al. (2021) has reviewed previous researcher papers on patients’ safety. All the evidence and sources that are used in this research paper are highly authentic and relevant which present the evidence-based discussion on patients’ safety. As mentioned by (0, a good literature review presented appropriate themes which enables the research study to create the appropriate conceptual framework. In this qualitative research paper by Groves et al. (2021), different themes are developed by comparing contrasting viewpoints of different authors regarding patients’ safety. These potential themes are the importance of open communication between patients and nurses, the barriers to creating space for communication regarding maintaining patient’s safety and strategies that nurses can use to improve nurse-patient communication to improve patients’ safety.

The quantitative research paper by Svitlica et al. (2021) also presents a discussion on patient safety courses for nursing students, in which valid and authentic previous research papers are reviewed. This literature review explores the findings of that researcher to conclude the inference of the research study. As mentioned by Podder et al (2018), as compared to the qualitative research study, the quantitative research study. The literature review does not make ant thematic analysis, rather it helps researchers to interpret and infer the responses and perspectives of participants that are recorded. A good literature review in quantitative research enables researchers to analyse and evaluate the verbatim of each participant and then analyse the transcript to extract the data findings (Purssell, 2020). On a positive note, the research study by Svitlica et al. (2021) has concise literature review, which enables the researcher to highlight the major aspect of the database collected from participants. On this positive note, it can be stated that both the two selected researcher papers are able to present and valid and appropriate literature review that enhances the believability of these research studies.

After analysing the literature review, the next researcher element to be analysed as per the CASP tool by Coughlan et al. (2007), is research methodology. Any good study must have well-constructed discussion on research methodology that helps learners to know which techniques and processes are undertaken to complete the research. The qualitative study by Groves et al. (2021) mentioned that, a qualitative design is used in this research study to examine the nurse-patient relationship in relation to ensuring patient safety and the responsiveness of nursing professionals to the safety needs of patients and families. Here authors also mentioned that Grounded Theory is used in this research study to analyse the responses of nurses. The quantitative paper by Svitlica et al. (2021) mentioned that a comparative cross-sectional survey has been conducted for collecting data from participants, under this cross-sectional study, the responses gathered from each participant is analysed and evaluated to transcribe the manuscript for obtaining the proper inference of the discussion. On a positive note, both these qualitative and quantitative research studies have successfully presented a clear ad appropriate research design that ensures the validity and trustworthiness of these research studies.

Sampling methods are the next important research element that is critically analysed by researchers. The qualitative research study by Groves et al. (2021) mentioned that researchers use purposive sampling in which 30 nurses from medical-surgical, intensive, child care and maternity care unit are selected. As stated by Purssell (2020), purposive sampling is used in the majority of qualitative research in which, participants are selected non-randomly based on some predefined research criteria for fulfilling a particular research purpose. This qualitative research study highlight that, here only the nurses who work in the above-mentioned units and long term experiences in these wards are selected for this study to obtain the responses regarding their experiences and perspectives on maintaining patients’ safety. The quantitative study by Svitlica et al. (2021) mentioned that random sampling methods are used here to select 370 nursing and medical student for recording their perspectives regarding implementation as well as the development of patients’ safety courses. Therefore it can be stated that these two research papers have successfully maintained the validity of the sampling methods which ensure the authenticity and believability of these research papers.

While appraising any research study, it is important to analyse whether the research paper has maintained all the research ethics. In this study, Groves et al. (2021) and Svitlica et al. (2021) have successfully obtained ethical approval from the concerned research committees. As mentioned by Buccheri and Sharifi (2017), while it comes to gaining ethical approval from the concerned research committee, the researcher must ensure that the human subjects which are included in the research study are not going to be harmed or disrespected. Additionally while conducting any research study, a good research paper must mention the researcher-participants relationship and the way the researcher interact with participants throughout the research study, these two research study mentioned it clearly that all the participants are treated fairly and respectfully with dignity which ensures the validity of the research study.

Data analysis and findings are the next aspects that need to be critically analysed by the researcher while conducting any critical appraisal (Flynn, 2021). The research study by Groves et al. (2021) has successfully presented the findings that, patient safety depends on the way nurses recognise and respond to the safety need of patients. The qualitative research also highlights the inference that most nursing and medical students consider the patient safety course as an effective way for enhancing their professional expertise in meeting the safety needs of patients.

Conclusion

From the above-mentioned discussion, it can be stated that critical appraisal; is associated with evaluating as well as analysing the believability, rigour and authenticity of the research paper. In the nursing field, critical appraisal is important for conducting evidence-based research on a particular nursing topic. Through critically analysing clinical research papers, the researcher can provide new insight on the usefulness, strength limitations and future scope of research papers which enables nursing professionals to improve their professional knowledge and understanding.

Reference list:

Svitlica, B.B., Šajnović, M., Simin, D., Ivetić, J. and Milutinović, D., 2021. Patient safety: Knowledge and attitudes of medical and nursing students: Cross-sectional study. Nurse Education in Practice, 53, p.103089.

Groves, P.S., Bunch, J.L., Sabadosa, K.A., Cannava, K.E. and Williams, J.K., 2021. A grounded theory of creating space for open safety communication between hospitalized patients and nurses. Nursing outlook.

Bagordo, A., Ciletti, K., Kemp-Smith, K., Simas, V., Climstein, M. and Furness, J., 2020. Isokinetic dynamometry as a tool to predict shoulder injury in an overhead athlete population: a systematic review. Sports, 8(9), p.124.

Binks, L., Drury-Smith, H. and Holborn, C., 2021. The psychological impact of prostate cancer after treatment: a critical review of the literature. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, pp.1-10.

Buccheri, R.K. and Sharifi, C., 2017. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence‐based practice. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 14(6), pp.463-472.

Carpenter, D. and Glasper, A., 2021. Critically Chapter 19 reviewing quantitative papers using a CASP critiquing tool. How to Write Your Nursing Dissertation, p.207.

Carpenter, D. and Glasper, A., 2021. Selecting Chapter 17 and using appraisal tools: how to interrogate. How to Write Your Nursing Dissertation, p.177.

Carvalho, D.P., Azevedo, I.C., Cruz, G.K., Mafra, G.A., Rego, A.L., Vitor, A.F., Santos, V.E., Cogo, A.L. and Júnior, M.A.F., 2017. Strategies used for the promotion of critical thinking in nursing undergraduate education: a systematic review. Nurse education today, 57, pp.103-107.

Cheikh-Moussa, K., Mira, J.J. and Orozco-Beltran, D., 2020. Improving engagement among patients with chronic cardiometabolic conditions using mHealth: critical review of reviews. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8(4), p.e15446.

Dodd, A.L., Reilly, S., Ahmed, F. and Thomas, C., 2020. Critical appraisal: how to examine and evaluate the research evidence. In Handbook of Theory and Methods in Applied Health Research. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ferreira, J.C. and Patino, C.M., 2018. Critical appraisal of the literature. Why do we care?. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 44, pp.448-448.

Fineout-Overholt, E., 2019. A guide to critical appraisal of evidence. Nursing2020 Critical Care, 14(3), pp.24-30.\

Flynn, M.F., 2021. Developing critical appraisal and evidence synthesis skills in future microbiologists. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 368(18), p.fnab114.

Hallas, D., Spratling, R. and Fletcher, J., 2021. Methodological Analysis: Randomized Controlled Trials for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines. Journal of Pediatric Health Care.

Handuleh, J.I., Sulleiman, A.A., Yusuf, Y.S., Mohamed, H. and Wolde-Giorgis, D.F., 2021. Introducing evidence based public health practice through a journal club for public health officers in Somaliland. Somali Health Action Journal, 1(1).

Hashemi-Goradel, N., Azami-Aghdash, S. and Ebrahimoghli, R., Breast cancer screening barriers from women’s perspective: a systematic review in qualitative studies and critical appraisal. Breast cancer, 1, p.09.

Jayachandran, S., Hill, K. and Walmsley, A.D., 2021. A critical review of qualitative research publications in dental implants from 2006 to 2020. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 32(6), pp.659-671.

Long, H.A., French, D.P. and Brooks, J.M., 2020. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 1(1), pp.31-42.

Naidoo, N., Nguyen, V.T., Ravaud, P., Young, B., Amiel, P., Schante, D., Clarke, M. and Boutron, I., 2020. The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence. BMC medicine, 18(1), pp.1-11.

Podder, V., Price, A., Sivapuram, M.S., Ronghe, A., Katta, S., Gupta, A.K. and Biswas, R., 2018. Collective conversational peer review of journal submission: A tool to integrate medical education and practice. Annals of neurosciences, 25(2), pp.112-120.

Podder, V., Price, A., Sivapuram, M.S., Ronghe, A., Katta, S., Gupta, A.K. and Biswas, R., 2018. Collective conversational peer review of journal submission: A tool to integrate medical education and practice. Annals of neurosciences, 25(2), pp.112-120.

Purssell, E. and McCrae, N., 2020. Critical Appraisal: Assessing the Quality of Studies. In How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review (pp. 51-68). Springer, Cham.

Purssell, E., 2020. Can the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme check‐lists be used alongside Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to improve transparency and decision‐making?. Journal of advanced nursing, 76(4), pp.1082-1089.

Quigley, J.M., Thompson, J.C., Halfpenny, N.J. and Scott, D.A., 2019. Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—a review of recommended and commonly used tools. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 25(1), pp.44-52.

Rosettenstein, K.R., Lain, S.J., Wormleaton, N. and Jack, M.M., 2021. A systematic review of the outcomes of false‐positive results on newborn screening for congenital hypothyroidism. Clinical Endocrinology, 95(5), pp.766-781.

Wang, Y.Y., Liang, D.D., Lu, C., Shi, Y.X., Zhang, J., Cao, Y., Fang, C., Huang, D. and Jin, Y.H., 2020. An exploration of how developers use qualitative evidence: content analysis and critical appraisal of guidelines. BMC medical research methodology, 20(1), pp.1-28.

Weiss, H.R., Nan, X. and Potts, M.A., 2021. Is there an indication for surgery in patients with spinal deformities?–A critical appraisal. South African Journal of Physiotherapy, 77(2), p.9.

Williams, V., Boylan, A.M. and Nunan, D., 2020. Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 25(1), pp.9-11.

Williams, V., Boylan, A.M., Newhouse, N. and Nunan, D., 2021. Appraising qualitative health research—towards a differentiated approach. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

Zuzelo, P.R., 2019. Critically Appraising Research Studies and Reports: Tools to Guide Evidence Evaluation. Holistic nursing practice, 33(6), pp.370-372.

Dig deeper into Critical analysis of Research Methods and Findings with our selection of articles.