How can the recent recommendations from professional organizations and peer-reviewed articles help nurses identify effective pharmacological and non-medical interventions to minimize or prevent SSI?
Qualitative Methods and Data Collection
Qualitative research methods stress the relevance of focusing on each person as a holistic entity, influenced by the surroundings, to develop a subjective perspective that affects their interactions. Its main characteristic includes holism, intersubjectivity, situated context, and subjectivity (Chicca, 2020). It entails broadly stated inquiries on human realities and experiences investigated through continuous contact with the respondent within their natural setting. Notably, the qualitative methods respond to the “why” and “how” questions as opposed to the “where,” “when,” and “what” (Renjith et al., 2021). The outcome of using this design in investigations is that it helps in developing explanatory health interventions, medical social theories, and explanatory management models.
The research question that the current study endeavors to answer are how recent recommendations from professional organizations and peer-reviewed articles help nurses identify effective pharmacological and non-medical interventions to minimize or prevent SSI. In turn, the researcher needs to understand the standards that nurses can observe to minimize hospital-acquired diseases after patients undergo surgery. Moreover, they should know the findings from peer-reviewed articles to integrate the evidence-based practice.
Several qualitative research designs are useful in answering the above research question. The phenomenological method focuses on descriptions of lived experiences that respondents give (Pope & Mays, 2013). In turn, it is suitable for investigating the prevalence and prognosis of surgical-acquired infections. Alternatively, the researcher can use a case study design where one hospital setting is selected as the investigation site. Last but not least, the grounded theory can be suitable when analyzing data and then developing a theory that is grounded on the data.
HAC Effect on the Tools
Interviews provide direct and straightforward responses to a phenomenon of interest. The recruitment of participants can be done randomly or using purposive, snowball, or convenience sampling techniques to select a sample with a depth of information that pertains to the study (Renjith et al., 2021). To find out how SSI recommendations can work, the interviewee can use unstructured, structured, or semi-structured questions. However, a semi-structured list of questions is most suitable for investigating SSI. Interviews have the advantage of providing detailed information and enhancing new knowledge.
The researcher collects data from a group of six to twelve participants who have experience with SSI. It is an efficient technique when gathering the information of many people at the same time. However, the focused group discussion may not be applicable within the hospital setting and when the subjects are still recovering from operations. The facilitator can probe for more responses until the information is exhausted. It is vital for the moderator to have the skills and expertise to ensure that participants are not deviating from the focus (Squires & Dorsen, 2018). In addition, the facilitators step back and let the respondents engage while ensuring that there is no person who domineers over others.
Observation offers nurse researchers the chance to gather a wide array of data from verbal and non-verbal communication at the same time. It is suitable for investigating SSI because the nurse can also get a first-hand picture of the processes involved in clinical practice. During the observation, the researcher can develop some field notes, which can be a chronological log of the occurrences in the setting, a description of the observations made, conversation records, and a detailed explanation of the fieldwork (Barrett & Twycross, 2018). Therefore, it will be easy to observe the patients and record any sign of infection after the operation period.
Effect of HealthCare Setting on Tool
Interviews can be time-consuming and subject to researcher bias and the effects of other extraneous variables. Within the healthcare setting, finding an ample and uninterrupted area to conduct an interview is more difficult. Moreover, the focus of the current study is SSI, which means that the patients cannot be interviewed. The nurses may also be so busy to get the time to interview due to the current shortage of staff. The healthcare environment is too busy for a focused group discussion which demands all participants because they get the chance to listen to the experiences of colleagues and get the courage to tell their issues. In this case, the patients cannot be put together to share their experiences because they are sick, and there is a risk of reinfection.
Moreover, it is difficult to find a place where people can sit and share all their experiences. Recording the focus group is always important so that the quotes can be integrated into the findings (Mohajan, 2018). However, the healthcare setting may be noisy, making it hard to video or tape record. The most suitable tool to use within the healthcare environment is observation. The rationale is that participants are in their natural setting. Hence, the nurses can have regular rounds, investigate any infection signs, and then make records. If the patient gives consent, they can take photographs for records and future analysis.
Conclusively, qualitative research methods are vital in understanding the experiences of patients and their caregivers. The scientist’s investigations of a clinical question phenomenon start from the point of unknowing to understand the various facets.
Therefore, the methodology is most relevant for gaining new constructs and concepts. The information garnered is detailed and explains the effectiveness of SSI intervention. The investigators look for common themes and findings from recommendations and peer-reviewed papers relevant to answering the research question.
References
Barrett, D., & Twycross, A. (2018). Data collection in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(3), 63-64.
Chicca J. (2020). Introduction to qualitative nursing research. American Nurse.
Mohajan, H. K. (2018). Qualitative research methodology in social sciences and related subjects. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 7(1), 23.
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (2013). Qualitative research in health care. John Wiley & Sons.
Renjith, V., Yesodharan, R., Noronha, J. A., Ladd, E., & George, A. (2021). Qualitative methods in health care research. International journal of preventive medicine, 12, 20. Web.
Squires, A., & Dorsen, C. (2018). Qualitative research in nursing and health professions regulation. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 9(3), 15-26.