What is the purpose of the study (research questions, purpose and hypotheses)?

The study focused on understanding the development and utilization of standard rules in relation to mechanical ventilation approaches within intensive care units in Sweden (Eldh, Vogel, Söderberg, Blomqvist & Wengström, 2013).

How was the sample obtained?

It is vital to note that a lot information about rules adopted by ICUs was available on the internet. thus, the researchers reviewed online information to determine facilities that would participate in the study. In order to identify ICUs to take part in the study, the study authors used online information that was available. The information was readily because the government requires all ICU facilities to their reports online on a regular basis. In the context of clinical-based reports, the researchers were able to determine anaesthetic sections that adopted surgical care (Eldh et al., 2013). All managers of ICUs were requested to fill some forms in order to obtain consent from them with regard to agreeing to take part in the study. In addition, they were required to provide the research team with the most current MV guidelines. (Eldh et al., 2013)

What exclusion or inclusion criteria were used?

Throughout the publication, it is notable that the study authors do not give information about inclusion and exclusion criteria. If such information could be provided, it could be easy to know the rules that were used evaluate the suitability of ICU facilities to participate in the investigation. However, it is clear that all ICUs in the nation were invited to take part in the study. From a critical perspective, it is essential to emphasize that the failure of the article to provide inclusion and exclusion criteria is a shortcoming. Scientific studies are supposed to offer rules that are used to recruit study participants. This is due to the fact that every study would utilize different approaches to recruit participants based on objectives and methods.

Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data?

Although 65 ICU centers were recruited to take part in the study, only 55 facilities, which translate into 85 percent, contributed data. The other 15% of the sample failed to participate due to the fact personnel within the targeted centers lacked time to provide the required data (Eldh et al., 2013).

What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence of events, timing, types of data and measurement?

Telephone interviews were utilized to collect data. Specifically, they were typified by communication between a researcher and an ICU manager in a healthcare facility. A manager was either a nurse leader or a medical doctor at a senior level in the management. Each interview lasted about 15 minutes.

What were intervention/treatment/ clinical protocol tested? Yes_ No_

What were the main findings of this study?

It was found that the guidelines used by ICUs in the sample did not consider patients’ experiences (Eldh et al., 2013). This could imply that the healthcare centers did not pay a lot of attention to patients, yet they are vital stakeholders in the healthcare industry. It was also noted that guidelines did not supporting references, which are critical elements in evidence-based practice. Finally, it was established that the MV guidelines used by a significant number of ICUs contained variations that could be sources of differences with regard to the approaches used to offer care.

Credibility

  • Is the study published in peer-reviewed journal? Yes_ No_ Not clear_. If yes, how did you find out this information?

I established that the journal (Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing) as peer-reviewed. It is critical to note that peer-reviewed journals are highly rated.

  • Was the research/experiment design used in this study appropriate for the research question? Yes_ No_ Not clear_
  • Did the data obtained and the data analysis that was conducted answer the research questions? Yes_ No_ Not clear_
  • Were the measuring instrument used this study reliable and valid? Yes_ No_ Not clear_. How do you know?

I have evaluated the reliability and validity of the measuring instruments (phone interviews) based on the design of the study. I have concluded that they were the most appropriate tools to collect healthcare data in Sweden. Were important extraneous variables and potential bias controlled for this study? Yes_ No_ Not clear_

  • Was the study free of extraneous variables introduced by how, when, and where the study was done? Yes_ No_ Not clear_
  • Are the findings credible? All Yes_ Some Yes_ No_

Conclusion

Yes, I agree with the “implications for practice and research” section in the article. Nevertheless, better results can be gained in the future. If the study could be carried out in America with the use of nurses in ICUs, it could yield similar results because nursing practices adopted across the world are similar. It is recommended that evidence-based practice should be supported by scientific data, which are obtained via thorough studies. Thus, it could produce the same results it could be conducted in the US. In the context of my knowledge in nursing, I think that the findings obtained from the Swedish nurses would be similar to what happens in my healthcare in institution in America. In the recent past, I have interacted with many personnel in the healthcare sector who have stated that nursing strategies in the US and Sweden are similar. Furthermore, I have verified that there are no significant differences by reading a number of articles on the internet. The online articles contain a lot of information about nursing matters in the two nations.

Reference

Eldh, A. C., Vogel, G., Söderberg, A., Blomqvist, H., & Wengström, Y. (2013). Use of Evidence in Clinical Guidelines and Everyday Practice for Mechanical Ventilation in Swedish Intensive Care Units. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 10(4), 198-207.

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. We can deliver a custom paper written by a certified writer within 3 hours. More about our writing service