Does the research design answer the research question? Explain your rationale.
The research question was to assess patients with and without sepsis and determine the difference in morbidity and mortality within two years of discharge from the ICU. Biason et al (2019) accomplished this by studying patients in the ICU through chart reviews and phone calls post-discharge. Morbidity was evaluated through assessments of activities of daily living, pain, and readmissions. Mortality was reviewed by the survival rate. The results of the study showed both a higher morbidity rate and mortality rate (P<0.001) in ICU patients with a diagnosis of sepsis. The results of the study aligned with the researcher’s hypothesis (Biason et al., 2019).
Were the study sample participants representatives? Why or why not?
The sample participants represented the research question by being admitted to the ICU and having a diagnosis with or without sepsis. Both genders and anyone over age eighteen was included in the study. Patients who were discharged received follow up for two years. Only twenty-one patients were lost in follow-ups (Biason et al., 2019). However, a limitation not indicated by the study was a power analysis of the sample size. This analysis would have helped determine the adequacy of the participant same size (Chamberlain College of Nursing, 2021).
Compare and Contrast the study limitations in this study.
The limitations of the study by Biason et al (2019), included not reviewing the cause of death in the participants, no validity of the Karnofsky and Lawton IADL scales in acutely ill patients, presence of pain was subjective, and mortality risk stratification models were not utilized in the study. The study presented a strength of comparison complexity in evaluating sepsis versus all other critical illnesses (Biason et al., 2019).
Based on this evidence summary, would you consider this qualitative research study as support for your selected practice problem? Explain your rationale.
This qualitative research study would add great value to the practice problem of sepsis. In utilizing the John Hopkins evidence-based practice tool the study completed by Biason et al. (2019) showed a level of evidence of I by being a randomized controlled trial. A quality rating of good was achieved through consistent results, utilizing a control group, current literature review, and definitive conclusions (Newhouse et al., 2007).
References
Biason, L., Teixeira, C., Haas, J., Cabral, C., & Friedman, G. (2019). Effects of sepsis on morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients 2 years after intensive care unit discharge. American Journal of Critical Care, 28(6), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019638 (Links to an external site.)
Chamberlain College of Nursing. (2021). NR-714 Week 2: Quantitative Inquiry and Data. Online lesson. Adtalem Global Education
Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S. L., Poe, S. S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Johns hopkins nursing – evidence-based practice model and guidelines (newhouse, john hopkins nursing evidence-based practice model and guidelines) (1st ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.
I need a comment for this Discussion Board with at least 2 paragraphs and 3 sources no later than 5 years.
