Abstract
Day surgery health officers encounter a substantial challenge when it comes to balancing between attending all patients within the limited timeframe and the need to offer sufficient verbal information about the health of the same patients and their families. Mark Mitchell’s article, which forms the basis of this paper, examines this challenge in detail. This paper presents a critique of Mitchell’s article to gauge the author’s expertise in assembling the content from the introduction to the study’s conclusive remarks. Specifically, it will evaluate the author’s style of introducing the article to assess the clarity and relevance of the underlying research problem. It will also comment on the methods applied in the study, including an assessment of the results, before appraising its implications for practice and the overall presentation.
Introduction
The article “Day Surgery Nurses’ Selection of Patient Preoperative Information” forms part of Mark Mitchell’s work. The research examines the pressure witnessed by elective day surgery medical doctors, especially when it comes to interacting or verbally communicating with the highly increasing number of patients in need of health professionals’ timely services. However, this research problem is not clearly stated since the author never specifies the extent of this problem, for instance, whether it is only prevalent in some countries, or it is a global phenomenon.
This problem is important to nursing because providing accurate verbal information in preoperative nursing immediately before and after surgery is significant. It helps to enhance professionalism in terms of improved nurse-patient contact. The justification for the study is that day-case surgery is on the increase. According to Mitchell (2016), despite the rising numbers of patients who need to be attended to by day surgery nurses, it is worrying that the level of nurse-patient interaction is getting inadequate, hence implying that such medical officers do not get ample time to disseminate sufficient information as expected to the patients and their families concerning their health status.
The author does not state the corresponding hypotheses or questions that this research seeks to address. However, the reader assumes that Mitchell wanted to respond to the question of whether increased verbal information between patients and day surgery nurses could enhance the speed of their (patients) recovery. However, the study’s aims and objectives are well stated in the article. The research seeks to investigate the assortment and release of the appropriate preoperative oral information to patients immediately before and after they undergo a surgical procedure (Mitchell, 2016).
The conceptual framework used in the paper is founded on verbal message delivery mechanisms, information conveyance, and preoperative information. The framework is clearly identified in the entire article. The author links it to the research purpose of gauging the best and the most effective information that day surgery nurses can assemble for dissemination to their patients and their relatives, despite the limited time available for such a practice.
The research literature is current since the date of publication of most of the materials used ranges from 2009 to 2015. The other few older materials have been used intentionally as a way of comparing the situation then and now, a strategy that helps the author to confirm that indeed the rising patient turnover is negatively influencing the level of nurse-patient interaction in the course of service delivery (Mitchell, 2016). The literature review is organized logically. However, instead of having a distinct heading for the literature review, it is incorporated into virtually all sections of the article. The literature review adequately supports the need for the study. For instance, the materials selected are linked to the research problem that has been stated above.
Methods
The research adopts a mixed-methods study design where both qualitative and quantitative elements are gathered using an electronic questionnaire. The design fits the purpose of the study, given that the information to be sought is partly found in the existing literature (qualitative) and partly in the questionnaire (qualitative and quantitative). The design is linked to the sampling method, which entails a semi-structured questionnaire. A survey to investigate the patient’s choice of information is posted on a website that targets day surgery health officers in the UK (Mitchell, 2016). On the other hand, it is linked to the statistical analysis since it avails questions whose responses inform the selected data analysis tool (SPSS).
The sample in the article includes 137 participants who were required to undertake the survey within 2-3 weeks. The response level was 44%. The sample is adequately described in the article. The sampling procedure is described in detail. For instance, the article explains the sampling process, preparations, and logical data collection. The sampling procedure identifies a sample that is representative of the population. The authors do not justify the sample size of 137 participants and a 44% response capacity. However, the size is adequate based on the population capacity. The study follows a standard research procedure that is acceptable in the academic realm. For instance, the email sent acknowledges the need to clarify the logic behind the research, including inviting all willing day surgery nurses to engage in the study. Hence, the study protocol is clear and concise.
One of the instruments described in the article is the electronic questionnaire. The Bristol Online tool is used for collecting data via a unique URL. The third instrument is the Preoperative Teaching Questionnaire (PTQ). The fourth instrument is the SPSS, which was used for statistical analysis. Each instrument, as illustrated above, measures the intended concept. For instance, the PTQ tool analyzes the collected data while the Bristol Online tool helps in collecting data using URL. Besides, SPSS is used for statistical analysis. The author does not present information on the validity and reliability of all instruments apart from the Bristol Online tool. This issue raises questions concerning the soundness of the other tools deployed in this study.
The author addresses the threats to internal and external validity by providing some assumptions, which are geared towards eliminating some validity issues. Secondly, the author highlights the limitations of the study. The evidence the author provides for human subjects reviews includes his consideration of ethical issues in the survey. For instance, the author focuses on the consent and anonymity of informants. The author also considers identifiable private information.
Indications of ethical concerns are apparent. For instance, consent from the respondents to fill the questionnaire without revealing their identity is considered in the email. This study is described inadequate details for replication. For instance, the author begins with an introduction followed by the background of the study among other sections to help in providing conclusions and recommendations for the study.
Results
The characteristics of the sample are described succinctly. The study clearly indicates that 137 respondents were used, including their respective gender and career experience. The research questions are not indicated as stated earlier. However, based on the study’s aims and objectives, such questions are described separately in the article’s data analysis and discussion sections. The type of data collected in this study is both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative data gathers the respondents’ opinions and observations. Besides, quantitative data is obtained in terms of the numerical details concerning operation, preoperative preparation, and anesthesia features among others.
The procedures deployed for data analysis include coding via the SPSS instrument to transform raw data into symbols for tabulating, counting, and analysis. The second procedure entails data tabulation, for instance, via the counting of preoperative expectations and information delivery levels. Tables and graphs are used to present data. Four tables and five bar graphs are evident. The text in the paper supplements and repeats the data in the tables. For instance, the data in Table 4 is supplemented by supporting information. The same content is also repeated in details in the text. In summary, the findings indicate that verbal information is important for preoperative nurses before and following a surgical procedure. However, nurses’ contact during this time is limited due to the increased number of patients in the facilities.
Discussion/Implications for Practice
The author relates the study findings to the purpose and objectives. For instance, the objective is to determine the importance of preoperative nurse-patient interaction. The author relates this objective to the findings that nurses need to relay verbal information to patients. The findings of the study are at par with previous observations. However, due to increasing number of patients, new findings indicate the need for an efficient verbal information conveyance framework (Mitchell, 2016). Besides, the author does not discuss results that reflect conflicting observations with reference to past studies. The study has several limitations. For instance, based on the 44% response level, the survey of the UK day surgery health officers implies that a good number did not respond to the questions.
New research that emerged from the study is that nurses who work with competing demands and numerous interruptions compromise patient safety. The potential for applying the findings in nursing practice is founded on the awareness that the conveyance of information is limited in nursing environments such as theatre settings. Therefore, providing personalized information by nurses as suggested in this study has the potential of solving the problem.
Overall Presentation and Final Summary
The title does not describe the type of study. However, it shallowly expresses major variables based on the implied relationship between day surgery nurses and the information to be relayed to patients in such complicated settings. The abstract accurately represents the study. It provides a general overview of the problem of day surgery nurses’ choice of information, including how to relay it to patients before and after an operation. The report is logically consistent. The author has arranged the paper in a coherent manner that captures the professional and academic requirements of such research work. The writing style is clear and consistent. The reader can follow the paper smoothly while comprehending what the author intends to present.
Reference
Mitchell, M. (2016). Day surgery nurses’ selection of patient preoperative information. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26, 225-237.