Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Readmission Rate

Article Title

“Retrospective review of the impact of a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) comprehensive case program on hospital readmission rates” (Alshabanat, Rampel, Burns, Sin, & FitzGerald, 2015).

Is This a Quantitative or Qualitative Research Article?

In their attempt at studying the effects of a Comprehensive Care Management Program (CCMP) on the length of stay among patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Alshabanat et al. (2015) use a quantitative approach (i.e., a retrospective comparison of key data). Thus, the opportunity to showcase the efficacy of the suggested method is provided. The use of the quantitative method helps to provide accurate results and make it evident that the adoption of CCMP is likely to lead to a massive improvement in the outcomes among patients with COPD.

What Are the Problem and Purpose of the Research Article?

According to Alshabanat et al. (2015), exposure to a range of risks in the environment of a hospital increases the risks of further readmission among COPD patients. Therefore, the needs of the identified demographics have to be met more efficiently. The purpose of the study is to prove that the CCMP technique designed by Alshabanat et al. (2015) is a legitimate tool for reducing the length of stay among COPD patients.

What Are the Hypotheses or Research Questions/Objectives of the Study?

The purpose of the research conducted by Alshabanat et al. (2015) is to identify the efficacy of the CCMP model designed by them to reduce the length of stay among COPD patients. The identified rationale is justified by the fact that patients with COPD are extremely vulnerable to the effects of external threats. Therefore, a model for reducing their exposure to risks is crucial.

What Population Was Sampled?

The authors of the research did not view characteristics such as gender, age, and ethnicity as either inclusive or exclusive criteria. Instead, the primary criterion for inclusion was the presence of a COPD issue in a patient.

How Was the Population Sampled?

The sample was composed of the patients that took part in the previous two programs aimed at managing the needs of people with COPD.

Describe the Method and Criteria for Sampling

Seeing that the people who participated in the study were selected based on their participation in a previous COPD-related program, it can be assumed that convenience sampling was utilized. Although the authors do not mention their technique, it is implied rather transparently in the study. The identified framework, however, might have caused biases such as certain demographics being underrepresented in the sample.

How Many Subjects Were in the Sample?

The sample included 594 participants from different backgrounds and with different characteristics. The decision to include a large number of participants into the study was justified by the fact that the research was based on a quantitative framework and, thus, demanded a substantial number of participants. Thus, the objectivity of research outcomes could remain high due to the opportunity to represent target demographics properly. One could argue, however, that the necessity to embrace a vast number of participants implied disregarding minor details in their responses to the therapy, thus, generalizing the outcomes significantly.

What Steps Were Taken to Protect Human Research Subjects?

Although Alshabanat et al. (2015) do not mention the specified fact directly, it is implied that the participants were given a letter of informed consent, which they had to sign to enroll in the study. Moreover, the names of the research participants are not disclosed in the article. Thus, the patients have retained their anonymity, and their security was not jeopardized. While seemingly simple, the identified steps are crucial for ensuring that the people taking part in human research remain secure. In the era of advanced technology and a steep rise in the levels of danger to which people are exposed, the safety of personal data is the issue of paramount importance. Herein lies the significance of maintaining the anonymity of research subjects. To their credit, Alshabanat et al. (2015) met the needs of their research subjects fully.


Alshabanat, A., Rampel, C., Burns, J., Sin, D., & FitzGerald, J. (2015). Retrospective review of the impact of a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) comprehensive case program on hospital readmission rates. Chest, 148(4), 715A. Web.