There are of course benefits and risks to any medical procedure, although the participants who were included in this study needed the central line placed due to a medical reason not just to participate in this study so the risks and benefits were explained to each and every patient at the time of the procedure unless the central line was put in during an emergent situation (Boyce, Nadeau, Dumigan, Miller, Dubowsky, Reilly, & Hannon, 2013). The participants who were in this study were informed and asked for permission if they could be used for data collection and if their cases could be followed up on for the extent of the time the central line is in place (Boyce et al. , 2013).
If the patients did not want to participate in the study their cases would not be utilized and no data collected form these individuals (Boyce et al. , 2013). I do not believe there were any benefits or risks that were not covered by the authors, as I mentioned earlier all the people who were included in the study needed the central line for medical purposes and not for the solo purpose of this study. And the collection of this data did not put the patients at any more risk foranythi ng than they already have from the central line.
It was not mentioned about the researchers having permission from the institutions review board prior to conducting the study but for such a large amount of participants and data to be included in the study one would assume permission was requested and granted prior to the beginning of the study. Data Collection The major variables were not directly identified, but for the purpose of this research article the independent variable would be the fact that all participants have a central catheter placed for some period of time to treat a medical condition.
The dependent variables would be the places which the catheter was placed and cared for as well as the length of time the catheter 2 3 REASEARCH CRITIQUE, PART 2 was in place, how frequently cleaned, and if any chemicals such as chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) were used during the cleaning or care of the catheter. The data utilized in this study was collected during a one-year descriptive review (Quach, Milstone, Perpete, Bonenfant, Moore, & Perreault, 2014).
The study took place in a single tertiary center with a 1,200-bed hospital and 209 adult ICU beds (Tedja, Gordon, Fatica, & Fraser, 2014). The participants in the study were hospitalized patients identified as having a central line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) event attributed to a non-ICU setting(Tedja et al. , 2014). The cohort was identified from a prospective infection prevention database, charts and administrative data sets were reviewed to further characterize the patients and device utilization ratios (DURs) and CLABSI rates were calculated using National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) CLABSI definitions (Tedja et al. , 2014).
There was no rational for as to why the data was collected this way but one may assume it was the most cost effective and least time consuming way to collect and review this data. Data Management and Analysis The data management and analysis used in this study was very simple, a computer was utilized to hold manually entered data collected from charts and administrative data sets that were reviewed to further characterize the patients and device utilization ratios (DURs) and CLABSI rates were calculated using National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) CLABSI definitions (Tedja et al. , 2014).
The author did not discuss how the rigor of the process was assured, as it was just data collected from patient charts that had a central line placed for a medical reason. The author mentioned that Microsoft excel was utilized to compile data (Tedja et al. , 2014). The data was reviewed by an entire team consisting of administrators, medical doctors, and nurses and presented to the hospitals administrative board before the data was 3 4.
REASEARCH CRITIQUE, PART 2 released to the public (Tedja et al. , 2014). As for bias during the study none was noted as this study was conducted for the benefits of the patients and to assist in the costs of secondary infection related to central lines, insertion and care. The research was conducted to learn of ways to reduce the incidence of these kinds of infections, which in turn will improve patient outcomes and reduce hospital costs.
Findings / Interpretation of Findings The researcher’s interpretation of findings show that routine care with use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and central lines placed in and cared for in the ICU have less incidence of infection(Tedja et al. , 2014) . These findings are a valid and accurate reflection of reality as we utilize these research and evidence based practices in every day care in modern medical facilities now. The limitations of the study were identified by researcher as this was only one hospital and one study conducted over a single year (Tedja et al. , 2014). Also this study includes all types of central lines, as well as insertion sites.
A more accurate study may be conducted on just one site and one type of catheter to see if there is any benefit to site or catheter. There was coherent logic to the presentation of findings, as everything makes sense and the end results of the study are logical. Without a doubt the findings of this study have great impact on the nursing practice in all areas of the nursing field as a central line is utilized in many different places of care from the ICU to home health and central lines are used to assist in the treatment of all races and population.
Suggestions that are made for future studies are to look at each type ofcentra l line and each insertion site to see if there are significant benefits to one over the other (Tedja et al. , 2014). 4 5.
REASEARCH CRITIQUE, PART 2 References Boyce, J. M. , Nadeau, J. , Dumigan, D. , Miller, D. , Dubowsky, C. , Reilly, L. , & Hannon, C. V. (2013). Obtaining Blood Cultures by Venipuncture versus from Central Lines: Impact on Blood Culture Contamination Rates and Potential Effect on Central Line—Associated Bloodstream Infection Reporting. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 34(10), 1042-1047. doi:10. 1086/673142 Quach, C. , Milstone, A.
M. , Perpete, C. , Bonenfant, M. , Moore, D. L. , & Perreault, T. (2014). Chlorhexidine Bathing in a Tertiary Care Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Impact on Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infections. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 35(2), 158-163. doi:10. 1086/674862 Tedja, R. , Gordon, S. M. , Fatica, C. , & Fraser, T. G. (2014). The Descriptive Epidemiology of Central Line–Associated Bloodstream Infection among Patients in Non-Intensive Care Unit Settings. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 35(2), 164-168. doi:10. 1086/674856.