Introduction
This study will examine the qualitative research conducted by Poelen et al. (2023) and the quantitative type presented by Boumans et al. (2021). Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a crucial point to consider when studying this topic, as this practice embodies the systematic approach nurses use in the workplace. Such care is critical because nurses can meet everyone’s needs without generalizing or sacrificing the quality of care.
The evidence-based approach to medicine can be characterized as applying the most accurate evidence and making relevant decisions about patients’ treatment. While the outcome of Boumans et al. (2021) explores the relationship between staff characteristics and providing a client-centered approach to treatment, Poelen et al. (2023) examines nurses’ attitudes to applying a person-centered approach. The primary purpose of this critical assessment is to determine the characteristics, effects, and usefulness of the research data in the context of the spread of evidence-based practices in medicine.
Qualitative Research Study – Poelen et al. (2023)
Research Design
Poelen et al. (2023) use a qualitative approach to research. This approach can be placed at the seventh level in the hierarchy of Polit and Beck, as this work can be called unified, in-depth qualitative research (Polit & Beck, 2019). In this scientific work, the information provided and the format correspond to the «Unified criteria for reporting qualitative research» (COREQ), as it uses methods of critical evaluation of reflexivity and research groups (Lincoln et al., 1985). These factors demonstrate self-consciousness, which makes this study particularly rigorous. The qualitative approach taken by the authors of the work can be characterized as a broad qualitative design. Phenomenological and substantiated theories have been combined, including various methods.
Sampling
Nine nurses were directly or indirectly involved in the study, including the nurses themselves and coordinators and assistants. These nurses are employed in five Dutch nursing homes, expanding the sample. The main criteria for selection were those nurses and assistants who spoke Dutch enough to communicate with patients and colleagues without barriers (Poelen et al., 2023). In turn, nursing students were excluded because of their inexperience. The sample used in the study is targeted. This directness is quite typical in the context of analysis in qualitative studies, where participants are selected based on their own experience in work (Polit & Beck, 2019).
Achieving maximum variability in the sample can be a mitigating criterion for research bias (Kwame & Petrucka, 2021). Thus, despite the small number of specialists, the piece was made considering the education, the position, and the type of change of medical worker. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were set out in the text, the first being nurses and healthcare workers. In contrast, the second could include students who were considered to be exempt because of their inexperience. Finally, for ethical reasons, the criteria for exclusion and inclusion suggest that each participant is fit for research and is ethically justified.
Data Collection
The data collection method used a semi-structured individual interview format. Six semi-structured interviews were conducted between February and March 2020. These include six telephone interviews and three personal interviews. In turn, telephone conversations are advantageous, as they are economically efficient (Moore et al., 2021). Generally, this criterion is essential to ensure data accuracy that can be recorded by audio and video (Kim, 2023). The same data collection approach may not have been chosen in previous studies of this type.
However, this method of interviewing also has its drawbacks and problems, which include a lack of visual cues and gestures. The work environment may directly impact the conduct of personal interviews (Ekman et al., 2021). For example, interviews conducted in a separate hospital room can affect potential employees differently. Authors are aware of the importance of trust, as the working environment can also influence the anonymity of participants. The instruments used are thus cost-effective and consistent with the study’s main objectives.
Ethics
The processing and storage of personal data used in the study are carried out by the policy of the Radboud Institute of Medical Sciences (Poelen et al., 2023). Each expert who participated in the research received an information letter in which the organizers emphasized preserving confidential data. Thus, the participants gave verbal consent to a telephone conversation and were informed in writing that a private interview would be conducted.
To ensure ethical standards, it is also essential to consider the length of time each professional attends an interview (Tomaselli et al., 2020). The study had every chance of being approved by the Ethics Committee, as the authors followed a privacy policy and could keep personal data confidential. The reference to the interview length for each healthcare worker, which was a matter of moral concern, was particularly striking.
Strengths and Limitations
This study is essential in significantly contributing to the still-unexplored field of medicine. The results of this work offer the reader an understanding of the practice of working in nursing homes, the empirical data about which are pretty limited (Poelen et al., 2023). At the same time, the reliability and validity of the study are confirmed by applying quality criteria, which include participant verification and recording and triangulation of researchers (Lincoln et al., 1985). The structure of the thematic analysis Braun and Clarke (2022) provides a systematic approach to research in the study. Finally, the main objective of the health system is to follow the context of high-quality aid delivery.
The most notable organization of work is the relatively small sample size, which can influence the study results and make them too generalized. In this paper, the authors could have paid more attention to different health facilities in other geographical locations, allowing a broader sample of participants. In personal care, patients need to conduct more extensive research (Yee et al., 2021). This can be achieved through a systematic review of similar literature, which examines the characteristics of personal-oriented care for people living in long-term care.
Quantitative Research Study – Boumans et al. (2021)
Research Design
Boumans et al. (2021) are the authors of the work, which mainly uses a survey approach. This study is on the sixth level in the Polit and Beck hierarchy, which calls the work a single cross-study (Polit & Beck, 2019). The advantages of the chosen method of survey examination include a broad sample in terms of the accessibility of large geographical areas, as well as the economic efficiency of the way.
However, the potential problems of such a research design may be the questionable plausibility of the results and the lack of control over respondents’ exposures. The study used a survey approach consistent with the principles of quantitative research. The design can be called observational, as it gives the reader an understanding of specific events occurring in a particular period (Boumans et al., 2021). For its purpose, research is appropriate, as the central issue of the work is understanding how medical personnel relate to the personalization of patient care. However, there are also potential problems in the text, among which is the likely uncertainty of the results.
Sampling
The study used a reasonably attractive sampling strategy: the survey participants were selected depending on availability. The results are based on the opinions of 68 employees of psycho-geriatric departments of residential institutions in the Netherlands (Boumans et al., 2021). Another characteristic of the sample is that each participant was able to volunteer. However, the problem in the context of volunteer selection is that participants’ autonomy can be violated, affecting the quality and reliability of the responses (Byrne et al., 2020). This is because competition and power-sharing between nurses and managers can make participants feel obliged to participate, immediately making research biased. Despite the ease and speed of the sample, this method contributes to difficulties in generalizing the results, as they become unobvious and unsubstantiated (Janerka et al., 2023).
Instead of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, participants were selected based on their willingness to participate in the survey. This sampling strategy is convenient because it simplifies data collection but can also lead to biased results. At the same time, there are limitations regarding the possibilities of generalization. These are related to the fact that, for example, the sample is intended for specific country office staff who have voluntarily registered for participation. The study could use a random or stratified sample to create a more generalized model. At the same time, existing sampling bias may affect the reliability of the participants’ responses, which is an essential factor in assessing the results.
Data Collection
The authors use three tools in this study to implement the data collection process. The first is OAZIS-Dementia, a 72-point questionnaire that aims to assess the physical environment of patients. The second tool is a personal-oriented evaluation of the results, measured on the Lickert scale, consisting of 13 points (Boumans et al., 2021). The third tool is the Family Relationship Checklist (AFC), which examines staff attitudes toward family members of dementia patients. The use of various tools increases the study’s accuracy and reliability and makes it more independent (Håkansson Eklund et al., 2019).
However, the study does not provide data on the number of responses and the number of completed questionnaires. The personal assessment tool, despite being tested, raises researchers’ suspicions about the internal consistency of the survey process and results. The previous studies did not use the tools presented in this paper, so it is impossible to establish exact reliability. Testing by the device impacts the test of their effectiveness and identifies potential problems, but there is no mention of whether the tools have been tested in the case of the study. Choosing the right tools ensures the validity of the results; in this case, it is impossible to draw specific conclusions. In quantitative studies, however, reliability indicates that the survey results measure what was needed in work.
Ethics
Notably, the study has been approved by the Ethics Council of the University of Tilburg and by the Ethics Committee of the Residential Institution. This factor is confirmed by the fact that each participant was informed in writing and agreed to participate in the survey. However, the details of how the participants obtained consent and how long they did so are unclear (Boumans et al., 2021). Thus, it is not clear whether the study is ethically rigorous.
Strengths and Limitations
The study provides a better understanding of the physical environment of patient care organizations, which requires a person-centered approach (Stonehouse, 2021). In addition, the research tools the authors have used are tested and reliable, which provides greater credibility for the work results. Another advantage of the study is its comprehensiveness, which includes various social policy and patient care personnel. In the future, the complexity of the study will be key to the reliability and more in-depth image of problems and their solutions (Hower et al., 2019). Thus, the set of tools used to produce results inspires confidence in readers and indicates the quality of the work done.
The study’s limitations include a relatively small sample size of 68 people, making it virtually impossible to generalize the results to the target population (Boumans et al., 2021). In addition, the authors’ sampling strategy may raise doubts about whether the work is sufficiently representative. Finally, the method of completing surveys and the time and frequency of responses are also unknown, which brings ambiguity to the study results.
Conclusion
In a qualitative study by Poelen et al. (2023), the authors draw attention to the importance of cooperation between professionals and patients and study nurses’ views. This work’s strengths include using a qualitative approach, which allows a better understanding of the experience of nursing staff in their care of patients. However, the limitations of the study are the small sample size and conclusions based on a survey of the work of one health organization. Nevertheless, learning about the characteristics of this work makes it possible to understand the need for interventions that promote an inclusive environment.
In a quantitative study conducted by Boumans et al. (2021), the author’s attention was drawn to the attitude of staff toward a person-centered approach to patient care. The findings suggest that scientists must research why nurses come to terms with the personal needs approach. The strengths of the study include the analytical tools that provide comprehensive insights into the views of medical personnel. However, the sample size in this exercise is also tiny, limiting the possibility of generalizing the results.
Finally, during the critical analysis of the studies conducted by Poelen et al. (2023) and Boumans et al. (2021), there were strengths and weaknesses in the works that affected the credibility of the research results. Examining the pros and cons of each piece is essential in understanding the underlying implications of the personal-centered approach in nursing care. The information I have studied will be helpful in my future professional activities, as when writing research papers, I will be able to understand better what format I should choose, allowing me to analyze better ways to improve patient-centered care.
Reference List
Boumans, J. et al. (2021) ‘How staff characteristics influence residential care facility staff’s attitude toward person-centered care and informal care’, BMC nursing, 20(1). Web.
Byrne, A.-L., Baldwin, A. and Harvey, C. (2020) ‘Whose center is it anyway? Defining person-centred care in nursing: an integrative review,’ PloS one, 15(3), p. e0229923. Web.
Ekman, I., Ebrahimi, Z. and Olaya Contreras, P. (2021) ‘Person-centred care: looking back, looking forward,’ European journal of cardiovascular nursing: journal of the Working Group on Cardiovascular Nursing of the European Society of Cardiology, 20(2), pp. 93–95. Web.
Håkansson Eklund, J. et al. (2019) ‘‘Same same or different?’A review of reviews of person-centered and patient-centered care,’ Patient education and counseling, 102(1), pp. 3–11. Web.
Hower, K. I. et al. (2019) ‘Implementation of patient-centredcare: which organizational determinants matter from decision maker’s perspective? Results from a qualitative interview study across various health and social care organisations,’ BMJ open, 9(4), p. e027591. Web.
Janerka, C., Leslie, G. D. and Gill, F. J. (2023) ‘Development of patient-centered care in acute hospital settings: a meta-narrative review,’ International journal of nursing studies, 140(104465), p. 104465. Web.
Kim, M. (2023) ‘Effects of a comprehensive person-centered care education program for nursing students,’ Medicina(Kaunas, Lithuania), 59(3), p. 463. Web.
Kwame, A. and Petrucka, P. M. (2021) ‘A literature-based study of patient-centered care and communication in nurse-patient interactions: barriers, facilitators, and the way forward,’ BMC nursing, 20(1). Web.
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. and Pilotta, J. J. (1985) ‘Naturalistic inquiry,’ International journal of intercultural relations: IJIR, 9(4), pp. 438–439. Web.
Moore, H. L. et al. (2021) ‘Inclusion of person-centered care in medical and nursing undergraduate curricula in the UK: interviews and documentary analysis,’ Patient education and counseling, 104(4), pp. 877–886. Web.
Poelen, A., van Kuppenveld, M. and Persoon, A. (2023) ‘Nurses’ perspectives on shift‐to‐shift handovers in relation to person-centered nursing home care,’ Nursing open, 10(8), pp. 5035–5043. Web.
Polit, D. and Beck, C. (2019) Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer Health.
Stonehouse, D. (2021) ‘The importance of person-centeredcare and how to achieve it,’ British journal of healthcare assistants, 15(7), pp. 334–339. Web.
Tomaselli, G. et al. (2020) ‘Person-centered care from a relational ethics perspective for the delivery of high quality and safe healthcare: a scoping review’, Frontiers in public health, 8. Web.
Yee, J. et al. (2021) ‘Person-centered care for older adults living in long-term care facilities: a systematic literature review,’ Journal of public health issues and practices, 5(2). Web.