A Peer Response must be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or

A Peer Response must be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Each Peer Response must have a minimum of ONE reference with citations (the best is a peer-reviewed article). Word count is greater than 75 words or at least 5 sentences in length.
Discussion question/Participation #1
Noce et al. analyze infection management measures, interventions that can be implemented, and patient outcomes during the first wave of COVID-19 in their study “Management of COVID-19 in an Outpatient Dialysis Program.” This research was carried out to have additional preventative measures in place before the second wave of covid19 arrived. The fact that only a few patients caught covid-19 is a flaw in this study. Nevertheless, this study is comparable to what one’s capstone project may be about, which is a strength.
Article two:
Hsu and Weiner’s essay (2020) “COVID-19 in Dialysis Patients: Outlasting and Outsmarting a Pandemic” discusses techniques to keep dialysis patients safe during treatment. A safe distance is impossible in some circumstances; however, wearing masks and screening for covid-19 can help dialysis patients reduce covid-19 exposure. Only one dialysis center was described in this study is one of the article’s flaws. One of the study’s strengths is looking for approaches to reduce covid-19-related mortality.
Article three:
The paper “COVID-19 Experience in Hemodialysis Patients: A Cue for Therapeutic Heparin-Based Strategies?” by Pisani et al discusses heparin’s anti-inflammatory and anti-viral capabilities, which could help avoid covid-19 infection in dialysis patients. The lack of proof on this topic is a flaw in this article. This needs to be studied in a broader group of people. Heparin is the most often used anticoagulant in hemodialysis, and thus if this research is correct, it may help dialysis patients avoid covid-19 infection.
Article four:
Li et al. investigate how dialysis treatment institutions in Taipei, Taiwan, avoided exposing their patients to covid-19. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of patients with the end-stage renal disease was investigated in the article “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Management of Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease.” Covid-19 guidelines were examined, including dialysis facility adjustments, education, and screening. This study provides evidence that preventative approaches for outpatient dialysis centers are one of its strengths. Unfortunately, several of these articles provide the same preventative measures is a flaw in this article.
Discussion question/Participation #2
The following is a brief summary of six of my articles which includes one strength and one weakness of each about providing sufficient evidence for my practice change project on CLABSI prevention on a non-ICU unit through patient education inclusion with shared ownership on central line maintenance.
The CDC promotes an evolving focus on patient-centered care in engaging patients and families on infection prevention. The strength is that it has numerous resources and data information about helping patients be active partners through education in the fight against preventable infections. The weakness is that there is no specific statistical analysis to incorporate into the project.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (n.d.). Engaging patients and families in infection prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/strive/PFE101-508.pdf
Grigonis and his colleges conducted a research study about the implementation of a central catheter maintenance bundle for evidence-based guidelines. The strength in this investigation was the inclusion of 30 hospitals in an observation duration of 14 months with a mean result of 95% CI (confidence interval) which demonstrated a significant decrease in CLABSI rate of 29%. The weakness is that because of operational change increased the focus on central catheters, it could have influenced the results as overall compliance to be a contributor as well.
Grigonis, A. M., Dawson, A. M., Burkett, M., Dylag, A., Sears, M., & Helber, B. (2016). Use of a central catheter maintenance bundle in long-term acute care hospitals. American Journal of Critical Care, 25(2), 165–172. Retrieved from https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.4037/ajcc 2016894
Ista and his team assessed the effectiveness of central line bundles to prevent CLABSI in all ages in this systematic review and meta-analysis article. The strength is this type of research has rigorous methods of collecting and synthesizing results and considered of high quality. The weakness is that the large proportion of the studies were single-center studies and the possibility that some studies included parts of previously published data.
Discussion question/Participation #3
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPU) is a serious problem observed in many healthcare settings. Healthcare staff needs to find out useful EBP for the prevention of HAPU.
The purpose of the research study by Mallah, Nassar, & Kurdahi Badr (2015) was to identify the benefits of the multidisciplinary approach to prevent Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers (HAPU). One major strength of this study is that it has a detailed literature review, it reveals lots of information on both national and international research work done by other researchers on HAPU prevention. The result of the study also reveals that the implementation of the multimodal approach program helped in reducing HAPU incidents and the cost of treatment associated with it. The weakness in this study is that its result cannot be generalized. The implementation of any HAPU prevention program will be based on the unique needs of the facility involved.
The purpose of the research study by Tallier et al. (2017) was to analyze the role of nurses’ knowledge and attitude in the prevention of HAPI. Researchers found that there is a knowledge deficit exists and there is a need for pressure ulcer prevention education. The strength of the study is that it discusses the benefits of nurses’ education to prevent HAPI. The weakness of the study is the small sample population.
The purpose of the research study by Chaboyer et al. (2016) was to identify the effect of a patient-centered care bundle intervention on pressure ulcer incidence (INTACT). Although the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was associated with a large reduction in the hazard of ulceration, there was a high degree of uncertainty around this estimate and the difference was not statistically significant. Possible explanations for this non-significant finding include that the pressure ulcer prevention care bundle was effective but the sample size was too small to detect this.
Discussion question/Participation #4
There are two methods to evaluating research and they are quantitative and qualitative techniques. Though they sound similar they do focus on key differences. Qualitative method focuses on the process in which a study was structured and the results (Joseph M, 2019). It does not focus on the data statistical numbers. The quantitative method is the opposite and deals mainly with the data numbers them self. This method is able to analyze the data to determine whether or not things are correlated and may be able to predict outcomes for future studies (Joseph M, 2019).
Discussion question/Participation #5
Data that can be measured and expressed numerically is used in quantitative approaches. It is based on numbers, making statistical analysis easy. Surveys, observations, experiments, and interviews are used to acquire quantitative data. The qualitative method uses data made up of text-based statements (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). Interviews, written materials, and observations are all collected using this method. Quantitative and qualitative methods are applicable depending on what you seek to learn. In research, both methodologies are sometimes utilized. Depending on the goal, each strategy offers its own set of benefits. Qualitative research is used when the researcher is unsure of what to expect (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018).
Discussion question/Participation #6
There are two main methods of evaluating evidence; a meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are a summary of the literature that uses reproducible and explicit methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013). They provide a high-level overview of primary research based on a particular research question. Systematic reviews entail the systemic identification, selection, evaluation, and synthesis of evidence that is relevant to a specific research question thereby making the evidence more accessible to decision-makers (Hunt, Pollock, Campbell, Estcourt & Brunton, 2018). The technique of systematic reviews of synthesizing multiple primary studies related to each other applies strategies that reduce random errors and biases (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013).
A meta-analysis, on the other hand, refers to a combination of data from several independent primary studies that address the same question to produce a single estimate like the effect of treatment or risk factor (Hunt et al., 2018). It is also defined as the statistical analysis of a large collection of analysis and results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013). Meta-analyses are important as they provide a logical framework of a reduced quantity of data by summarizing data from multiple sources which ensures generalizability, makes efficient use of existing data, explains data inconsistency, helps to check the consistency of relationships and quantifies data (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013).
Therefore, systematic reviews refer to the entire process of collecting, reviewing, and presenting all available evidence while meta-analysis refers to the statistical technique applied in the extracting and combining of data to produce a summary of results. A meta-analysis is a subset of systematic reviews but not all systematic reviews have meta-analyses. The conclusions made in systematic reviews are based on the analysis of data from various studies while systematic reviews are based on a summary of the literature.