Quantitative Critique
A Quantitative Research Critical Appraisal
Georgetown University
Research Methods and Biostatistics for Health Care Providers
NURO 530
Dr. Maureen McLaughlin
September 26, 2013
A Quantitative Research Critical Appraisal
This paper is a quantitative research critical appraisal on the research study titled “Improving Hospice Outcomes Through Systematic Assessment”. The authors of the study are Susan C. McMillan, PhD, ARNP, FAAN, Brent J. Small, PhD, and William E. Haley PhD. The study was published in the journal Cancer Nursing 2011, volume number 34, issue 2, pages 89-97. The URL for the article is http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737818_2.
Population
The target population for the research study was newly admitted hospice patients with a diagnosis of cancer who have family caregivers. The accessible population for the research study was 709 newly admitted patients to hospice. The setting was a multi-site study “conducted at 2 large private, not-for-profit hospices” (McMillan, Small, & Haley, 2011, p. 89). Both hospices offered interdisciplinary teams (IDT) with various qualifications.
Sample
The sample selection process began with the identification of home teams with equivalent makeup and patient type at each hospice. The teams were then randomly assigned to receive either standard care or standard care with the systematic assessment. Eligible patient-caregiver dyads were identified at the beginning of each day by research assistances that were experienced hospice staff. The eligible patient and caregivers were then approached for the study within 24 to 72 hours of hospice admission. Each patient and caregiver was then screened using the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire. If the patient and caregiver were found eligible for the study, they were recruited and signed consent forms. Sample inclusion criteria included patients with a “cancer diagnosis and an identified family caregiver and were 18 years old or older,
Georgetown University
Research Methods and Biostatistics for Health Care Providers
NURO 530
Dr. Maureen McLaughlin
September 26, 2013
A Quantitative Research Critical Appraisal
This paper is a quantitative research critical appraisal on the research study titled “Improving Hospice Outcomes Through Systematic Assessment”. The authors of the study are Susan C. McMillan, PhD, ARNP, FAAN, Brent J. Small, PhD, and William E. Haley PhD. The study was published in the journal Cancer Nursing 2011, volume number 34, issue 2, pages 89-97. The URL for the article is http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737818_2.
Population
The target population for the research study was newly admitted hospice patients with a diagnosis of cancer who have family caregivers. The accessible population for the research study was 709 newly admitted patients to hospice. The setting was a multi-site study “conducted at 2 large private, not-for-profit hospices” (McMillan, Small, & Haley, 2011, p. 89). Both hospices offered interdisciplinary teams (IDT) with various qualifications.
Sample
The sample selection process began with the identification of home teams with equivalent makeup and patient type at each hospice. The teams were then randomly assigned to receive either standard care or standard care with the systematic assessment. Eligible patient-caregiver dyads were identified at the beginning of each day by research assistances that were experienced hospice staff. The eligible patient and caregivers were then approached for the study within 24 to 72 hours of hospice admission. Each patient and caregiver was then screened using the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire. If the patient and caregiver were found eligible for the study, they were recruited and signed consent forms. Sample inclusion criteria included patients with a “cancer diagnosis and an identified family caregiver and were 18 years old or older,
References: McMillan, PhD, ARNP, FAAN, S. C., Small, PhD, B. J., & Haley, PhD, W. E. (2011). Improving Hospice Outcomes Through Systematic Assessment. Cancer Nursing, 34(2), 89-97. Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737818_print