Qualitative Research Design

Qualitative Research Design

Qualitative Research Design 150 150 Peter

Qualitative Research Design

Write a fully developed and detailed APA essay addressing each of the following points/questions. There is no required word count; be sure to completely answer all the questions for each question in detail. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. Support your ideas with at least one (1) source using citations in your essay. Make sure to cite using the APA writing style for the essay. The cover page and reference page are required. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.

Conduct a literature search to select a qualitative research study on the topic identified in Module 1. Conduct an initial critical appraisal of the study.

Respond to the overview questions for the critical appraisal of qualitative studies, including:

What type of qualitative research design was utilized to conduct the study?
Are the results valid/trustworthy and credible?
How were the participants chosen?
How were accuracy and completeness of data assured?
How plausible/believable are the results?
Are implications of the research stated?
May new insights increase sensitivity to others’ needs?
May understandings enhance situational competence?
What is the effect on the reader?
Are the results plausible and believable?
Is the reader imaginatively drawn to the experience?
What are the results of the study?
Does the research approach fit the purpose of the study?
How does the researcher identify the study approach?
Are the data collection and analysis techniques appropriate?
Is the significance/importance of the study explicit?
Does the literature support a need for the study?
What is the study’s potential contribution?
Is the sampling clear and guided by study needs?
Does the researcher control selection of the sample?
Do sample size and composition reflect the study needs?
Is the phenomenon (human experience) clearly identified?
Are data collection procedures clear?
Are sources and means of verifying data explicit?
Are researcher roles and activities explained?
Are data analysis procedures described?
Does analysis guide directions of sampling when it ends?
Are data management processes described?
What are the reported results (descriptive or interpretation)?
How are specific findings presented?
Are the data meanings derived from data described in context?
Does the writing effectively promote understanding?
Will the results help me care for my patients?
Are the results relevant to persons in similar situations?
Are the results relevant to patient values and/or circumstances?
How may the results be applied to clinical practice?
Please be sure to answer the questions thoroughly using complete sentences and APA format. Explain responses to yes/no questions in detail by presenting information found in the study to support your response.

Provide a reference for the article according to APA format and a copy of the article.

Sample Paper

Paoli, C. J., Reynolds, M. A., Sinha, M., Gitlin, M., & Crouser, E. (2018). Epidemiology and costs of sepsis in the United States—an analysis based on timing of diagnosis and severity level. Critical care medicine, 46(12), 1889. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6250243/

What type of quantitative research design was utilized to conduct the study?

The study employed a retrospective observational study to collect data from the Premier Healthcare Database. As the name suggests, retrospective research investigates past exposures to possible risk or protective variables in light of a predetermined result.

Are the results valid/trustworthy and credible?

Yes, the results are valid, credible, and trustworthy. This is because the study methodology selected in the study suits the purpose of the research article. In this retrospective research, the accuracy of the evidence is high, and critical data all data is present, making the results more trustworthy. In addition, selection bias is not a common problem in this study.

How were the participants chosen?

For inclusion, patients had to be older than or equal to 18, have a diagnosis code for sepsis from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition or International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition at discharge, or have been reimbursed for sepsis DRG codes with an associated diagnosis of bacteriaemia (Paoli et al., 2018).

How were accuracy and completeness of data assured?

All instances of sepsis were included in the primary analysis to ensure completeness and accuracy. The study also looked into whether the patient had been diagnosed with sepsis when they arrived at the hospital.

How plausible/believable are the results?

The study results are very plausible and believable. By documenting, systematizing, and revealing the techniques of analysis in sufficient detail, the quantitative study demonstrates that data analysis has been undertaken in an accurate, uniform, and complete manner.

Are implications of the research stated?

Yes, the implications of the study are stated. When sepsis is POA and assessed by severity degree, researchers can focus on disparities within the sepsis group and analyze the various consequences and costs.

May new insights increase sensitivity to others needs?

Yes, new insists can increase sensitivity to other needs. There is a clinical and economic opportunity to lessen the burden of sepsis by enhancing the early diagnosis and treatment of individuals in the earliest stages of sepsis, as quantified by this granularity.

May understandings enhance situational competence?

Yes, doing so can successfully improve situational competence by allowing the caregiver to know what to do at any given time when dealing with a patient with sepsis in a hospital in the United States.

What is the effect on the reader?

The burden, results and costs of caring for sepsis patients in U.S. hospitals are laid bare for the reader. As a result, they have a better grasp of the country’s sepsis actual state.

Are the results plausible and believable?

The study results are very plausible and believable. By documenting, systematizing, and revealing the techniques of analysis in sufficient detail, the quantitative study demonstrates that data analysis has been undertaken in an accurate, uniform, and complete manner.

Is the reader imaginatively drawn to the experience?

Yes, the research looked to be straightforward enough for any reader to follow up with without too much difficulty. The study’s wording is basic and clear, making it easy for the reader to grasp the ideas.

What are the results of the study?

There was an overall death rate of 12.5% although there were wide variations in mortality rates depending on severity (5.6% for sepsis without organ failure, 14.9% for severe sepsis, and 34.2% for septic shock), according to the study. According to the severity of the patient’s condition, costs ranged from $16,324 to $24,638 to $38,298 (Paoli et al., 2018). Costs varied substantially depending on whether sepsis was present upon admission ($18,023) or not ($51,022).

Does the research approach fit the purpose of the study?

The study wanted to find out how difficult and expensive it is to care for patients with sepsis in U.S. hospitals, as well as how successful it is. The severity and economic impact of sepsis in the United States might be reduced if early detection methods can be developed. This is why this study methodology is appropriate.

How does the researcher identify the study approach?

The researcher found the study approach by examining the Premier Healthcare Database, which comprises around twenty percent of U.S. inpatient discharges from private and public institutions.

Are the data collection and analysis techniques appropriate?

Yes, mean, standard deviation, and median were calculated from the data. Counts and percentages are common ways of presenting categorical data. All costs incurred by the hospital to treat the patient are included in this total figure. Each and every one of the investigations were carried out using SAS software.

Is the significance/importance of the study explicit?

Yes, a major contribution of the research is that it has shown the existing burden, results, and expenses of treating sepsis patients in US hospitals, all of which have been thoroughly documented. Sepsis may be reduced in the United States if new methods are developed to enhance the detection of sepsis at an earlier stage.

Does the literature support a need for the study?

Yes, according to the available research, healthcare systems throughout the world are still unable to effectively manage sepsis. More than 970,000 people in the United States are brought to the hospital each year with sepsis, and the number is steadily climbing (Paoli et al., 2018). An 8.7 percent annual rise in the number of hospitalized patients suffering from sepsis was found in a study of hospitalizations in the United States over the course of two decades (Paoli et al., 2018).

What is the study’s potential contribution?

Using this study, the public can better understand the existing burdens, consequences, and costs associated with managing sepsis patients in US hospitals today. This will assist them in planning for their therapy.

Is the sampling clear and guided by study needs?

Yes, the study’s sampling was clear and guided by the need that only patients who were at least 18 years old at the time of admission and who had an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition or 10th Edition were eligible for participation.

Does the researcher control selection of the sample?

Yes, the researcher controlled the selection of the sample and only those who meet the inclusion criteria were included in the study.

Do sample size and composition reflect the study needs?

Yes, the study’s requirements were met with a sample size of 2,566,689 sepsis patients. Because of the inclusion of data from the Premier Healthcare Database, the sample size was precisely right for this quantitative investigation (Paoli et al., 2018).

Is the phenomenon (human experience) clearly identified?

Septic patients “represent a comparatively large burden in terms of hospital consumption,” according to the research, which clearly identifies the problem. The mean length of stay (LOS) in 2013 was observed to grow considerably with the severity of sepsis, and the LOS for sepsis patients in U.S. hospitals is around 75% larger than for most other diseases (Paoli et al., 2018).

Are data collection procedures clear?

Yes, the data collecting processes are clear, as it is explicitly stated that the quantitative data were done on patient characteristics, attributes, and medical and economic outcomes for the reference hospitalization and thirty-day readmissions in order to get the relevant data.

Are sources and means of verifying data explicit?

Yes, the data were obtained from the quantitatively publicly available Premier Healthcare Database, which has data from more than 659 million patient contacts, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by contacting the database for further information.

Are researcher roles and activities explained?

Yes, the researcher’s function is clearly defined in the study since the researcher enlisted individuals to gather data and then processed it for the presentation of results.

Are data analysis procedures described?

Yes. All sepsis-related patients were included in the first primary analysis. The data was also analyzed based on whether the patient had been diagnosed with sepsis at the time of admission (POA). In the secondary analysis, the focus was on determining how severe sepsis is in terms of its financial impact (Paoli et al., 2018). To categorize patients based on their severity, an ICD-9/ICD-10 coding hierarchy was developed.

Does analysis guide directions of sampling when it ends?

Yes, in the case of severe sepsis but no serious sepsis or septic shock codes, patients were labeled as having severe sepsis, whereas in the case of severe sepsis without organ failure, patients were labeled as having sepsis without organ dysfunction.

Are data management processes described?

In terms of data management processes, the study did not describe any processes.

What are the reported results (descriptive or interpretation)?

The reported findings are interpretations. In data interpretation, many analytical approaches were used to examine data and reach useful conclusions. Understanding the meaning behind data helped scientists sort, classify, and organize their findings.

How are specific findings presented?

The average, standard deviation, and median provide a snapshot of the sample as a whole. Counts and percentages are common ways of presenting categorical data (Bergin, 2018). All costs incurred by the hospital to treat the patient are included in this total figure.

Are the data meanings derived from data described in context?

Data meanings were extracted from recorded data and presented as the study’s findings. More than half of all instances of sepsis in the United States are cases of less severe sepsis (sepsis without organ failure), according to the study. When sepsis is POA and assessed by severity degree, researchers can focus on disparities within the sepsis group and analyze the various consequences and costs (Paoli et al., 2018). There is a medical and financial possibility to minimize the cost of sepsis in America, especially via efforts to improve the early identification and treatment of individuals in the initial stages of sepsis, as quantified by this fine granularity.

Does the writing effectively promote understanding?

In this research, the researchers were able to successfully communicate their findings and their interpretations of the study results because they offered a clear explanation in very basic language. The findings appeared to be simple enough for the average reader to follow up with. Using simple and straightforward language, the study’s findings can be easily comprehended by the reader.

Will the results help me care for my patients?

Yes, the findings assist nurses and other caregivers in better understanding the current challenges, repercussions, and costs involved with managing sepsis patients in US hospitals today. This will help them arrange their treatment. This suggests that they can be utilized to assist control sepsis in any patient by any other provider.