Qualitative Research Critique

A Qualitative Research Critique
The purpose of this paper is to critique the research article, “Gulper. Et. Al’s Preventing belt restraint use in newly admitted residents in nursing homes: A quasi-experimental study. The incident I am going to discuss in this paper is of Mr. P., an 85-year-old man, admitted to this facility about a year ago. His history includes coronary heart disease, cataract, dementia, hypertension, macular degeneration and Alzheimer’s. Mr P. scored 28 of 30 on the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination; he missed the date and recalled 2 of 3 objects at 5 minutes (Folstein, Folstein, and McHugh 1973). His medications included Analgesics, anti-hypertensions, antipsychotics and baby aspirin. Mr. P had multiple falls
over the past few months, which resulted in laceration of head. Recent studies have documented a rapid increase among older adults in age-adjusted rates for fall-related head injuries, especially in the long-term care environment (Yang, Schonnop, Feldman, & Robinovitch, 2013). His family constantly requesting to “belt him” when he is in chair to prevent fall. We have no restrain policy in our home. His POA repeatedly verbalizing the use of seat belt will prevent him from getting up and falling. Some of the staff agree with the family to use a seat belt. I decided to research on the topic on restrains if that is helpful or harmful for our resident. he ethical dimension of care is an essential part of good nursing practice, and ethical reflection is necessary for nurses to come to thoughtful and balanced decisions. Critical reflection on what constitutes good care is required in everyday care, but even more so in ethically charged situations such as those requiring physical restraint (Goethals, Casterle, &
Gastmans, 2012).
If nurses are to improve their practice, and apply evidence to improve their clinical and theoretical knowledge and skills, they must be able to assess the quality of the available research which is relevant to their practice (Freshwater and Bishop, 2003 p 23;). According to Hek (2000 p 19-21), evidence based practice incorporates professional expertise, patient need and preference, and the best available evidence.

QUASI- EXPERIMENTAL CRITIQUE. The title is concise and describes the focus of the research itself. While it clearly indicates what the purpose of the study was (Gousper Et. AL, 2012), it could be clearer and more indicative of the nature of the study. While the focus of the research in setting out to ‘on preventing belt restraint use in newly admitted residents as compared to reducing belt usage among already admitted residents. The EXBELT intervention includes a policy change, education, consultation and the availability of alternative interventions. EXBELT seems to be effective in preventing the use of belt restraints in newly admitted residents; (Guplper, et. Al 2012, P.1474).
Abstract: Guplher Et.
Al provided an abstract,

Introduction and Review of the Literature:
The authors use the introduction to contextualize the problem in relation to published research,stating that knowing that the use of physical restraints been shown to be ineffective and sometimes even hazardous, attention must be focus on interventions to reduce the current usage and prevent initiation of new restraints (Gulper, 2012, P.1474). They highlight some important topics in relation to the focus of the article, including policy change, educational programs, consultation and alternative interventions.
Several sources were reviewed by the authors to establish the need for the study as well as to stress the importance of preventing the use of seat belt on newly admitted residents. The literature reviewed by the authors dates from the year 1997 to 2010 (Gulper et al., 2012). There are forty-two articles cited by the authors that discuss physical restraints (Gulper et al., 2012). All sources are relevant to the topic of either physical and chemical restraints or fall prevention. (Gulper et al.,2009). The citations within the paper are all referenced correctly.
Methpdology: Purpose and Problem
The Ethical Aspects of the Study
Gulper research did not pose any ethical dilemmas. The participants were able to provide written informed consent was obtained. The study design and protocol were approved by the medical ethics committee and local ethical committee
The Research Problem/Purpose Statements The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of the EXBELT intervention to prevent the use of belt restraints on psychogeriatric residents newly admitted to nursing homes.
They did not offer any hypothesis, as this was a phenomenologic study using interviews. Sampling and Design In the article, two sample were used 1) residents living in as nursing homes and 2) newly residents admitted. They recruited 26 psychogeriatric wards from 13 nursing homes throughout various regions in the Netherland for studies. From these homes 6 homes were allocated to EXBELT intervention group and 7 homes were allocated to control group (Gulpers et.al 2012, p. 1475). The settings were psychogeriatric wards in nursing homes. The study design is not described in detail in this article.

Clinical Implications The writers state that the findings in this study reinforce the use of EXBELT seems to prevent the use of belt restraints in newly admitted residents in psychogeriatric nursing homes. The need for health care providers to be aware that “many negative physical, psychological and social consequences of restraint use had been reported and recent studies confirm that education alone is not enough to ensure a reduction in reduction in use of restraints (Gulpers et.al 2012, p.
1475).
Feasibility
This article contains useful information for the nurse to absorb, think about, and perhaps use in their practice. Often today’s nurses are more attuned to the technical and physiological aspects of their patients and this study will prove useful to those providing a more holistic approach to cancer care. The article provides useful information with no cost-benefit ratio.
Reflection:
I found that article written by gulper Et al very interesting and informative. Although many of the ideas resented I am agree with, there are also some points I would like to argue against.