Introduction
Buckley, Hensman, Thomas, Dudley, Nevin and Coleman (2012) major concern was the development of inter-professional simulation in the undergraduate setting. The development of inter-professional simulation is critical particularly for the nursing students. According to the researchers, inter-professional simulations provide the pre-qualifying staff precious enlightening understanding. Further, Buckley, Hensman, Thomas, Dudley, Nevin and Coleman (2012) argue that such inter-professional simulations should be emphasized for the students to realize the benefits. The researchers argue that the simulations are critical particularly within the evidence-based practices. However, the manner in which the researchers have conducted their study remains questionable especially where professional study is involved (Alinier, 2007). Therefore, the paper provides a critique as well as critical analysis in the manner in which the study was conducted. In particular, the critique will concentrate on the framework the researchers applied in their final report.
The annotated critiquing framework
Buckley, Hensman, Thomas, Dudley, Nevin and Coleman (2012) applied the standard research report framework as well as the methodology in their study. The standard framework includes study Background, introduction, statement and purpose of the problem, study questions and hypotheses, significance of the study, definition of terms, limitations of the study, literature review, methodology, samples, instruments, procedures, design and statistical procedure, data analysis and results, ethical considerations, discussion, conclusions and recommendations.
However, the paper will be criticized based on three main key areas including the methodology applied, sample and sampling procedures as well as the data analysis and results. The framework of analysis and critique is critical in understanding the manner in which the study was conducted. Buckley, Hensman, Thomas, Dudley, Nevin and Coleman (2012) might have used appropriate framework, however, some key areas have various shortcomings. Through research critique, the limitations in the key areas can easily be identified (Sedwick et al, 2012).
Main component-analysis and discussion
Research design/methodology
The research methods used in this study are both quantitative and qualitative. Though the research design is standardized, the research methodologies used to arrive at the results have some faults particularly the qualitative part of the design. In their qualitative method, the researchers were limited in providing the reviewed literature in the topic to ascertain their claims (Carlson et al, 2009). In other words, the researchers disregarded the major aspect of secondary information. The secondary data is an important aspect in the causal relationship studies (LeFlore & Anderson, 2009). The literature in related studies provides an insight on the research topic as well as findings of other researchers. The analyses of such findings are useful in providing new and clear concepts that explain the dynamics of the study, set up main concerns, build up on operational explanations and improve on the final research design (Nehring, 2008). However, the researchers provide a brief introduction of the topic based on some few peer-reviewed articles. The implication of limited secondary information is that knowledge as well as the opinions of other scholars is not considered. In essence, there is a gap in knowledge in the area of the study (Salas et al., 2008).
Even though the study was designed to be majorly quantitative, the qualitative aspect is also critical in determining the study outcomes. Further, the topic of the study could best be studied using the qualitative aspect (Siassakos et al., 2011). Developing inter-professional simulation is an area that has been studied for some time. Even though the aspect being studied can be claimed to be quantitative in nature, ignoring the qualitative part is detrimental to the quantitative aspects. In addition, there is close relationship between the aspects being studied and other researches that have been done (Silver, 2008). Therefore, ignoring the qualitative part of the study represents a gap in knowledge in developing inter-professional simulation.
The researchers chose the quantitative research design to ascertain the validity of their purported hypothesis. However, the variables in the study were qualitative. The researchers are somewhat confusing on how they conduct their study (Szasz, 2009). Even though the researchers established methods through which the variables can be quantified and tested, the quantitative aspects are wanting particularly on the methods of data analysis. In the positive aspect, the variables were tested using appropriate tools to establish the validity. Further, to establish the conclusion, the researchers tested the results to validate the results (Sparks et al., 2005).
Sample or the participants of the study
As indicated, the research design or methodology was majorly quantitative aimed at testing the validity and reliability of important aspects of the study to establish the relationships that exists. As such, a sample or study participants are required to establish the results (Macintosh et al, 2011). Like any other quantitative researches, there are methods of selecting study sample since the whole population cannot be studied (Cronenwett et al 2007). The sample should be representative of the whole population. In other words, the method of selecting the sample should minimize as much as possible biasness that may exist. However, in this study, the researchers selected the study participants through the random sampling procedure (Blue et al., 2010).
In fact, the random sampling procedure is the best method to select the study participants since it does not show any bias in the process. The samples were drawn randomly from all pre-qualifying students in session consisting of medical, nursing, physiotherapy, radiography as well as students from operating department practice (Lê et al., 2008). Even though the sampling procedure seemed to be unbiased, the sample was too small and non-representative. In fact, the sample was drawn majorly from two departments and the participants were majorly from nursing students. As such, the sample did not capture the views of the pre-qualifying students in a wider scale as purported by the researchers (Baggs & Schmitt, 2007). Further, the sample used can be considered to be too small considering the total number of students and the aspect of the study. Therefore, the deductions drawn from the study cannot be conclusively admitted (Dombeck, 2008). As such, there is need for further researches on this area. In particular, the studies conducted using larger group to ascertain results for adoption. In other words, this study is limited to inform the full adoption of the results.
Data analysis and results
The researchers presented the statistical tools that would be applied in the data analysis. However, given the limitations in the design and the sample, the results cannot be adopted. The data analysis tools presented have increased possibility of providing accurate results. However, tools such as the descriptive statistics or thematic coding contribute to errors in the results (Hunt et al., 2006). As indicated, even if the errors that might arise from the analytical tools are minimized, the limitations in the sample and sampling procedures as well as study design would further affect the results. Even though the results are positive, the study results should be considered preliminary for full application of the results in practice (Bradley, 2006).
Quite observable is the researchers’ clarity and consistency in their communication skills that makes the article more understable (Gordon et al., 2011). However, some of the items are coalesced particularly, on the part of the results bringing out ambiguity in some important information. Moreover, in the discussion, the researchers concentrated on their personal view instead of the research results (Ziv et al., 2010).
As purported by the researchers, there is need for further study in this area. The studies so far conducted have not fully developed a procedure to be adopted in assessing the relationships between inter-professional simulation and the benefits that arise (Ker et al., 2010). Since the sample size in this study was too small, further studies need to be conducted using larger groups to ascertain the results (Sigalet et al, 2012). Moreover, further studies are needed to establish new items considered important in developing sittings of inter-professional model for pre-qualifying students. Despite the shortcomings in the sample and the design, the study is quite practicable particularly in inter-professional simulations (Coster et al., 2008). The reason is that the study provides a basic framework in which further developments in inter-professional simulations are gauged.
To adopt the results, the researchers should have included more of diversified respondents from various departments that are indicated in the study. In addition, the number of participants should have been increased to provide a wide array of views, samples as well as diversity in dealing with some of the issues (Curley et al, 2013). Nevertheless, the results indicated little variability depending on departmental representation. Further, the study could have included observational measures relating to the attitudes of such interactive sessions.
Conclusion and implications for the practice
Even though the study provided a preliminary framework through which inter-professional simulations could be conducted and based among the pre-qualifying staff, the information provided was based on small sample size that could not offer reliable ascertainment for full adoption of the results. Therefore, there is need for further studies to be conducted using larger group to ascertain the results. Moreover, the study concentrated on inter-departmental students, therefore, does not take into consideration the critical inputs of the total multi-disciplinary panel including instructors and practitioners. In essence, the study was limited in samples used. In addition, the instruments could have captured most important behavioral aspects such as the interactions between the participants and the patients. In other words, supplementary psychometric testing should be done with increased sample of students, health institutions, instructors and the tutors as well as regions. Moreover, further longitudinal studies need to be conducted to appraise the sensitivity on the need of inter-professional simulations.
References
Alinier, G 2007, “Enhancing trainees’ learning experience through the opening of an advanced multiprofessional simulation training facility at the University of Hertfordshire,” British Journal of Anaesthetic and Recovery Nursing, vol.8 no.2, pp.22-27.
Baggs, J, & Schmitt, M 2007, “Nurses’ and resident physicians’ perceptions of the process of collaboration in the MICU,” Research in Nursing and Health, vol.20 no.6, pp.71-80.
Blue, A, Zoller, J, Stratton, T, Elam, C & Gilbert, J 2010, “Inter-professional education in U.S. medical schools,” Journal of Inter-professional Care, vol.24 no.4, pp.204-206.
Bradley, P 2006, “The history of simulation in medical education and possible future directions,” Medical Education, vol.40 no.3, pp.254-262.
Buckley, S, Hensman, M, Thomas, S, Dudley, R, Nevin, G & Coleman, J 2012, “Developing inter-professional simulation in the undergraduate setting: experience with five different professional groups,” Journal of Inter-professional Care, vol.26 no.5, pp.362-369.
Carlson, J, Min, E, & Bridges, D 2009, “The impact of leadership and team behavior on standard of care delivered during human patient simulation: a pilot study for undergraduate medical students,” Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol.21 no.1, pp.24-32.
Coster, S, Norman, I, Murrells, T, Kitchen, S, Meerabeau, E, Sooboodoo, E, & d’Avray, L 2008, “Inter-professional attitudes amongst undergraduate students in the health professions: a longitudinal questionnaire survey,” International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol.45 no.11, pp.1667-1681.
Cronenwett, L, Sherwood, G, Barnsteiner, J, Mitchell, P & Sullivan, D 2007, “Quality and Safety Education for Nurses,” Nursing Outlook, vol.6 no.2, pp.122-131.
Curley, MA, Hansberger, M & Harris, SK 2013, “Psychometric evaluation of the family-centered care scale for pediatric acute care nursing,” Nursing Research, vol.62 no.3, pp.160-168.
Dombeck, MT 2008, “Professional personhood: Training, territoriality and tolerance,” Journal of Inter-professional Care, vol.11 no.3, pp.9-21.
Gordon, J, Wilkerson, W, Shaffer, D & Armstrong, E 2011,”Practicing medicine without risk: students’ and educators’ responses to high-fidelity patient simulation,” Academic Medicine, vol.76 no.5, pp.469-472.
Hunt, R, Alinier, G, Gordon, B & Harwood, C 2006, “Effectiveness of intermediate-fidelity simulation training technology in undergraduate nursing education,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vo.54 no.3, pp.359-369.
Ker, J, Mole, L & Bradley, P 2010, “Early introduction to inter-professional learning: a simulated ward environment,” Medical Education, vol.37 no.3, pp.248-255.
Lê, Q, Spencer, J & Whelan, J 2008, “Development of a tool to evaluate health science students’ experiences of an inter-professional education (IPE) program,” Ann Acad Med, vol.37 no.12, pp.1027-1033.
LeFlore, J & Anderson, M 2009, “Alternative educational models for interdisciplinary student teams,” Simulation in Healthcare, vol.4 no.3, pp.135-142.
Macintosh, S, Adams, C, Singer-Chang, G & Hruby, R 2011, “An osteopathic approach to implementing and promoting inter-professional education,” Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, vol.39 no.3, pp.456-464.
Nehring, WM 2008, “U.S. boards of nursing and the use of high-fidelity patient simulators in nursing education,” Journal of Professional Nursing, vol.24 no.2, pp.109-117.
Salas, E, DiasGranados, D, Klein, C, Burke, CS, Stagl, KC & Goodwin, GF 2008, “Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis of human factors,” The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol.50 no.6, pp.903-933.
Sedwick, M. B., Lance-Smith, M., Reeder, S. J. & Nardi, J. (2012). Using Evidence-Based Practice to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Critical Care Nurse, vol.32 no.4, pp.41-52.
Siassakos, D, Bristowe, K, Draycott, T, Angouri, J, Hambly, H & Crofts, J 2011, “Clinical efficiency in simulated emergency and relationship to team behaviours: a multisite cross-sectional study,” An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol.11 no.8, pp.596-607.
Sigalet, E, Donnon, T, & Grant, V 2012, “Undergraduate students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward a simulation-based inter-professional curriculum: the KidSIM ATTITUDES questionnaire,” Simulation Healthcare, vol.7 vol.6, pp.353-358.
Silver, G 2008, “Beyond general practice: the health team,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, vol.31 no.6, pp.29-39.
Sparks, S, Ralph, M, Taylor, R 2005, Nursing diagnoses, reference manual, William and Wilkins, Lippincott.
Szasz, G 2009, “Inter-professional education in the health sciences,” Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol.47 no.4, pp.449-475.
Ziv, A, Small, S & Wolpe, P 2010, “Patient safety and simulation-based medical education,” Medical Teacher, vol.22 no.5, pp.489-495.