It has to be stated that the research design of both studies allows for answering the research question. In particular, the conduction of semi-structured interviews with the nursing staff allowed for learning nurses’ perceptions of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (Roberts et al., 2016). Also, interviewing patients who participated in a trial testing of the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle helped estimate the extent to which patients adopted the intervention and determine facilitators to it.
The representativeness of participants of study 1 is poor as only a small number of permanent full-time and part-time nurses who participated in the implementation of the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle were invited for the interview. However, data were collected until saturation, and great variation in sampling was achieved. Participants of study 2 can be considered representative since they all took part in the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle. In addition, participants were from surgical and medical units and differed in sex, race, ethnic group, and age.
Before discussing the limitations that affect conditions under which the results can be interpreted, it is important to mention that the scope of the research of two studies can be applied to other settings. This is because studies assess innovative care bundle that has been implemented in 8 acute care hospitals, both public and private. However, the findings of the two studies may be not generalizable to other countries, and the views of some participants (nurses and patients) were not considered in the research. Compared to study 1, the representativeness of participants of study 2 is better. Limitations of study 1 include little sample size which could have influenced the results of the semi-structured interview as only 2-3 nurses from each acute care hospital were interviewed (Roberts et al., 2016). In contrast to Study 1, participants of study 2 were not interviewed at control sites to avoid outcome assessors influencing their answers (Roberts et al., 2017). The findings of the research can apply to the elaboration and further implementation of other pressure ulcer prevention care bundles or protocols in similar healthcare settings.
Based on the evidence summary, both of the analyzed qualitative research studies may be further used to provide support for the selected practice problem of patient safety regarding pressure ulcer prevention. Such an assumption is reiterated by the relevance of the studies, important findings that help answer the evidence-based practice question, applicability to various healthcare settings, and a small number of limitations. However, further research on this practice problem needs to be conducted.
- Roberts, S., Mcinnes, E., Wallis, M., Bucknall, T., Banks, M., & Chaboyer, W. (2016). Nurses’ perceptions of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: A qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nursing, 15(1), 64-74.
- Roberts, S., Wallis, M., Mcinnes, E., Bucknall, T., Banks, M., Ball, L., & Chaboyer, W. (2017). Patients’ perceptions of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle in hospital: A qualitative descriptive study to guide evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(5), 385-393.