As a Nursing student, I was recently assigned to read and critique a Systematic Research Review (SRR). I have never done this type of assignment before, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. After reading the SRR, I found it to be a well-written and informative piece of research. However, there are some areas that I feel could be improved.
One area that I felt could be improved was the discussion of the implications of the findings. The SRR did a good job of discussing the findings of the study, but I felt that the implications of those findings could have been discussed in more depth. For example, the SRR discussed how the findings could be used to improve patient care, but it didn’t discuss how the findings could be used to improve Nursing practice.
Another area that I felt could be improved was the discussion of the limitations of the study. The SRR did a good job of discussing the limitations of the study, but I felt that it could have been more specific in some areas. For example, the SRR mentioned that one limitation of the study was that it was only conducted in one country. However, I feel that the SRR could have been more specific about which country the study was conducted in and what other countries were included in the comparison.
Overall, I thought that this was a well-written and informative SRR. However, there are some areas that I feel could be improved. I would recommend that future SRRs include more discussion of the implications of the findings and be more specific about the limitations of the study.
The goal of a systematic review is to look for, evaluate, and synthesize high-quality research relevant to the study question. A structured data collection and sampling plan is established in advance as a protocol for a systematic review. (Polit, 2012).
The following are required components of any systematized review: clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, an articulated search strategy, standardized coding and analysis of included studies, and meta-analysis if feasible. (Deeks, 2011). There are six steps in conducting a systematic review; however, not all steps need to be completed for every review. (Slade, 2010).
The first step is to develop the research question. The PICO format is often used to formulate the research question and is an acronym for population, intervention, comparator and outcome. (Deeks, 2011). Once the research question has been formulated, the next step is to identify relevant studies. Studies can be identified through databases such as MEDLINE or EMBASE. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be developed prior to searching for studies in order to limit the number of studies that need to be screened. (Slade, 2010).
After the studies have been identified, the next step is to screen the studies for inclusion in the review. The title and abstract of each study are screened and full-text articles of potentially eligible studies are obtained. Two reviewers independently assess each article for inclusion using the inclusion and exclusion criteria developed in advance. (Deeks, 2011).
Once the studies have been included in the review, the next step is to extract data from the studies. Data that is extracted should include information on study design, setting, participants, interventions and outcomes. It is often helpful to create a data extraction table prior to starting this process. (Deeks, 2011).
The fifth step is to assess risk of bias in included studies. Risk of bias refers to the potential for errors or biases that can occur at each stage of a study. (Deeks, 2011). There are many tools that can be used to assess risk of bias, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. (Higgins, 2011).
The final step is to synthesize the data from the included studies. This can be done through a narrative synthesis or a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies. (Deeks, 2011).
Systematic reviews are a valuable tool in evidence based practice. They help to ensure that the best available evidence is used to inform decision making. It is important to remember that not all systematic reviews are created equal and it is important to critically appraise systematic reviews to ensure that they are of high quality.
Nurses perform systematic reviews as part of a deliberate attempt to avoid producing incorrect or fraudulent findings as a result of prejudice. Many individuals consider systematic reviews to be the foundation of evidence-based practice. The problem addressed by this paper is “to undertake a comprehensive study of nurse working conditions and to assess the literature on their link with patient outcomes.”
The authors searched six databases and included fifty-nine studies. The study found that “nurse staffing was the most commonly studied working condition, followed by job satisfaction, work hours, and mandatory overtime.”
The authors also found that “studies that assessed the association of nurse working conditions with patient outcomes were often methodologically weak.”
This article is important to me and my nursing practice because it provides a comprehensive review of the current evidence on the relationship between nurse working conditions and patient outcomes. This article is also important because it highlights the methodological weaknesses of many of the studies included in the review, which underscores the need for further research in this area.
One strength of this article is its comprehensiveness. The authors searched six databases and included fifty-nine studies in their review. Another strength of this article is its clear presentation of findings. The authors provide a detailed table that summarizes the main findings of each study included in the review.
One weakness of this article is its reliance on studies that were conducted in developed countries. The authors acknowledge that “studies from developing countries were underrepresented,” which limits the generalizability of the findings. Another weakness of this article is its focus on quantitative studies. The authors state that “the included studies were predominantly quantitative,” which limits the ability to assess the quality of working conditions for nurses in different settings.
A systematic research review (SRR) is a kind of study that draws on comparable research to answer a certain clinical issue. Using comprehensive search methods to obtain an impartial overview of the literature is time-consuming and thorough (O’Mathuna and Fineout-Overholt, 2015). The aim of this paper is to analyze a SRR focused on patient participation in patient safety.
The authors used the PICO format to generate their research question: “In hospital settings, does patient involvement in safety initiatives improve safety outcomes for patients?” To find studies that would answer this question, the authors searched CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science.
The inclusion criteria were (1) quantitative research design, (2) adult hospitalized patients, (3) study participants must have been involved in some type of safety initiative while in the hospital, and (4) study had to report at least one safety outcome. A total of 17 studies were included in the final review.
The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for quantitative studies. All 17 studies were judged to be of good quality. The results of the review showed that patient involvement in safety initiatives does indeed improve safety outcomes for patients.
There are a few limitations to this SRR. First, the search was only conducted in three databases which may have led to the exclusion of some relevant studies. Second, the inclusion criteria were somewhat restrictive which could also have resulted in the exclusion of some studies. Despite these limitations, this SRR provides a good overview of the current research on this topic and can be used to inform future research and practice.
In conclusion, this systematic review provides evidence that supports the involvement of patients in safety initiatives in hospital settings. Further research is needed to explore the most effective ways to involve patients in such initiatives. Nursing staff should be aware of the findings of this review and should consider involving patients in safety initiatives in their own practice.
