NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Walden University NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing-Step-By-Step Guide

 

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing  assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

 

How to Research and Prepare for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

 

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

 

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

 

How to Write the Introduction for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

 

How to Write the Body for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

 

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

 

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

 

How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

 

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

 

How to Format the References List for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

 

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

 

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease. 

 

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW. 

 

Sample Answer for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Clinical decision is of utmost importance in the provision of quality health outcomes. Contingent upon this premise, the two articles establish decision-making procedures and practice guidelines relevant for clinical practice. The first study assesses the feasibility of decision-making processes by nurses stationed at the emergency department of a care facility (Fisher, Orkin & Frazer, 2010). On the other hand, the work of Tjia et al. (2010) purposes to develop guidelines required to monitor the dispensation of high-risk medications while at the same time establish the prevalence of existing laboratory testing concerning these medications. In order to draw clinical evidence on a factor in decision making, the article by Fisher, Orkin and Frazer (2010) employed the usage of nonparametric tests comprising Fisher’s exact tests and chi-square. The study relied on conjoint analysis to reflect upon the decision-making patterns. The results of this study provided quality outcomes by demonstrating that nurses depended on the functional status of patients, future health status, and family input to undertake decisions on healthcare delivery for their clients. The article by Tjia et al. (2010) utilized t-test and Likert-type scale to formulate guidelines for the utilization of high-risk drugs and to monitor the frequency of dispensing them. The non-parametric test was instrumental in developing medication dispensing guidelines in terms of drug classes, the frequency of medication, monitoring and laboratory testing for efficacy.

The 2010 IOM report had four key messages or recommendations for nurses to position themselves strategically in healthcare provision. Firstly, the report stresses the need for nurses to practice to the fullest level of their education and training without any hindrances imposed by state boards of nursing. The message influences nursing practice as it means that nurses should be barred from practicing what they have trained on in different specialties (Price & Reichert, 2018). Secondly, the report asserted that nurses should engage in lifelong learning to acquire higher levels of education and training based on a better education system. The message means that the nursing practice requires professional nurses to engage in continual professional development to attain the latest skills and knowledge in healthcare provision, especially the deployment of technology.

According to numerous empirical studies, parametric parameters receive useful application in the testing of study group means. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the methodology remains debatable within the context of the present articles. For instance, the use of t-test and ANOVA requires normal distribution of the applicable data regarding the research. Since data from the two articles were not distributed, it became paramount for the authors to consider skewing of non-normal distribution to produce the results (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011). Therefore, the approach remains embedded on assumptions and as such it has a high vulnerability to error. However, the assertion receives higher applicability in the second article. Nonetheless, the application of ANOVA and t-test requires studies that have a broad distribution of sample sizes, a threshold that neither of the two articles met.

Despite providing results on the clinical decision and high-risk drug dispensing techniques, certain strengths and weakness characterized the studies. The first article used conjoint analysis techniques to design a workable mathematics model required for clinical decision-making process for nurses in the emergency department (Fisher, Orkin & Frazer, 2010). However, the technique involving proxy decision-making for this study is complex considering the premise that it does not uniformly address the responses of all nurses. As such, the study could be subject to speculation hence casting doubt on the accuracy of information obtained from the first study. In the article by Tjia et al. (2010), the selected study design captured a multispecialty population and therefore provided a reflection of clinical practice in the United States of America. However, utilization of the Likert-type scale could subject the study outcomes to errors due to a lack of consensus on the questions administered to participants. Considerably, findings and recommendations in the work of Fisher, Orkin and Frazer (2010) provide the need for aligning clinical decisions as per the patients in the emergency department for purposes of improving the quality of care. Correspondingly, the other article offers guidelines for safe administration of high-risk medications to establish an evidence-based practice in a healthcare setting.

In the entire coursework, the present author discovers nonparametric tests as commonly applied to the processes of analyzing data. Specifically, chi-square dominates most of the literature review in clinical research. Evidently, the adoption of this test has demonstrated effectiveness in the analysis of nominal data. Furthermore, the technique has a high level of accuracy since it has received comparison with observed frequencies obtained from null hypotheses. Nevertheless,  the adoption of other nonparametric tests such as the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests does not readily occur since they measure rank-ordered data. According to Gibbons and Chakraborti (2011), the application of the above-mentioned non-parametric tests in multifarious clinical studies does not normally occur since outliers have the capacity to obscure the outcomes. Moreover, the outliers have minimal impact on the chi-square tests.

Reference

Fisher, K., Orkin, F., & Frazer, C. (2010). Utilizing conjoint analysis to explicate health care decision making by emergency department nurses: a feasibility study. Applied Nursing Research, 23(1), 30-35.

Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric statistical inference. In International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 977-979). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Tjia, J., Field, T. S., Garber, L. D., Donovan, J. L., Kanaan, A. O., Raebel, M. A., … & Gurwitz, J. H. (2010). Development and pilot testing of guidelines to monitor high-risk medications in the ambulatory setting. The American journal of managed care, 16(7), 489-496.

“An essential component of nursing education is ensuring students develop the competencies in the use of empirical evidence in their clinical practice. The fundamental goal of statistics courses is to teach healthcare professionals the proper uses of statistical thinking to enable them to effectively evaluate the literature and integrate evidence into their practice” (Baghi & Kornides, 2014).

Photo Credit: ZoneCreative / iStock / Getty Images

How are research methods used in nursing? What particular methods are used in your area of nursing practice? Over the last few weeks, you have been exploring these questions, and you will continue this exploration examining the specific tests and methods that may be used in your particular area of nursing practice. Why might different methods be used based on an area of practice? Why is it important for DNP-prepared nurses to be familiar with various research methods?

For this Discussion, reflect on the tests and methods utilized in research studies, presented over the last eight weeks of the course, to consider the approach, impact, and purpose of these in conducting nursing research. Using a selected article, consider the approach used and reflect on how that approach might fits within your area of nursing practice.

_{Reference: Baghi, H., & Kornides, M. (2013). Current and future health care professionals attitudes toward and knowledge of statistics: How confidence influences learning. Journal of Nursing Education Practitioners 3(7), 24–29 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239707/}

NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

To Prepare:

• Review the articles presented in this week’s Learning Resources and analyze each study’s use of statistical and nonparametric tests.
• Select an article to focus on for this Discussion.
• Ask yourself: Which method is most commonly used in research studies that pertain to my area of nursing practice, and why this might be so?

By Day 3 of Week 8

Post a critical analysis of the article that you selected by addressing the following:

• What are the goals and purpose of the research study described by the article you selected?
• How are nonparametric tests used in the research study? What are the results of their use? Be specific.
• Why are parametric methods (t tests and ANOVA) inappropriate for the statistical analysis of the research study’s data? Be specific and provide examples.
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research study (e.g., study design, sampling, and measurement)?
• How could the findings and recommendations of the research study contribute to evidence-based practice for nursing?

By Day 6 of Week 8

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

• Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

  

• Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
• Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
• Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
• Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
• Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
• Also Read:  

Submission and Grading Information

Also Read:  NURS 8201 Week 7 Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 8 Discussion Rubric

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Post by Day 3 of Week 8 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 8

To Participate in this Discussion:

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

The research statement that I chose the research topic discusses the factors that contribute to the prevention of evidence-based pressure ulcers. Evidence-based therapy for pressure ulcer management is not being implemented. Because the hospital structure is complicated, greater expertise is required to comprehend how to enhance nurse care in this field (Sving et al., 2014). In this research problem, the main focus would be looking at the relationships that would be between variables at various levels in the healthcare institutions environments that include the patients, hospitals, the units in the hospitals, and medical providers, in addition to the recordkeeping of threats analysis and evaluation of the skin within 24 hours of hospital admission by use of pressure-relieving mattresses and scheduled realigning in beds.

In researching the relationships between the use of different variables used in reducing pressure ulcers within the first day (24 hours) of admission, there are independent and dependent variables that will be used. The dependent variables in the research would include the recordkeeping of the threats analysis, skin evaluation in the first 24 hours of admission, the employment pressure-relieving mattresses, and scheduled realigning in beds (Sving et al., 2014). The dependent variables would be categorized as continuous data. The documentation of records and threats analysis is a constant measure that cannot be quantified but measured and recorded progressively.

The independent variables would include age, gender, the number of days in hospitalization, the threat score on the research day or rather data collection day, the type of healthcare, the staffing of nurses, and finally, the workload in the hospital. The independent variables would be categorized as ordinal data that I would employ the Braden scale or Likert scale to measure the scores (Robitzsch, 2020). The variables would be analyzed statistically by getting the standard deviation, interquartile range and testing the hypothetical level by determining the confidence interval (Taherdoost, 2016). The disadvantages of the analysis process are that the sampled participants represent the whole community, and testing small data would probably not give the truth of the prevention of pressure ulcers in healthcare institutions.

References

Robitzsch, A. (2020). Why Ordinal Variables Can (Almost) Always Be Treated as Continuous Variables: Clarifying Assumptions of Robust Continuous and Ordinal Factor Analysis Estimation Methods. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589965

Sving, E., Idvall, E., Högberg, H., &Gunningberg, L. (2014). Factors contributing to evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention. A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51(5), 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.007

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. SSRN Electronic Journal. Published. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035

Sample Answer for NURS 8201 Week 8 Discussion: Statistical Analysis in Nursing

Article chosen:

Wilson, D., Redman, R., Talsma, A., & Aebersold, M. (2012). Differences in perceptions of patient safety culture between charge and noncharged nurses: Implications for effectiveness outcome. Nursing Research and Practice, 2012, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2012/847626

What are the goals and purpose of the research study described by the article you selected?

The research study described in the article aims to explore and compare the perceptions of patient safety culture between two distinct groups of nurses: charge nurses and staff nurses (non-charge nurses). The primary goal is to determine if there are significant differences in how these two groups perceive the safety culture within nursing units. This investigation is crucial because charge nurses, who are often frontline unit leaders making shift-by-shift decisions, and staff nurses, who mainly provide direct patient care, play pivotal roles in the implementation of safety guidelines and the utilization of research evidence in clinical settings.

The purpose of the study is highlighted as follows:

To Compare Perceptions of Safety Culture: The study specifically seeks to understand how charge nurses and staff nurses perceive aspects of the patient safety culture differently within their work environments. This includes their overall perceptions of safety, the frequency of event reporting, teamwork dynamics within units, and their personal safety grading of the work area.

To Examine the Impact of Charge Nurse Experience: By differentiating between nurses with various levels of charge responsibilities (e.g., permanent charge nurses, relief charge nurses, and those without any charge nurse experience), the study intends to assess how the extent of responsibility and leadership experience might influence perceptions of safety.

To Inform Effective Implementation of Practice Guidelines: Understanding these perceptions can aid healthcare organizations in tailoring interventions that promote the effective implementation of evidence-based practice guidelines. Charge nurses, often utilized as change champions, could be better supported through targeted strategies that consider their unique insights and challenges related to patient safety culture.

Overall, the study focuses on identifying and addressing potential disparities in safety culture perceptions which could impact the practical application of safety protocols and guidelines across different nursing roles within acute care settings. This could ultimately contribute to enhancing patient care outcomes by refining the roles of charge and non-charge nurses in safety and practice guideline implementation.

 How are nonparametric tests used in the research study? What are the results of their use? Be specific.

 In the research study described, nonparametric tests are utilized to analyze differences in perceptions of patient safety culture among charge and non charged nurses. Specifically, the Pearson’s chi-square test and the t-test for independent samples are used as part of the study’s statistical approach to handling the data collected through surveys.

Use of Nonparametric Tests:

Pearson’s Chi-square Test:

• Purpose: This test is used to examine the relationship between categorical variables, specifically looking at the percentage of shifts nurses are in charge and the number of events reported.
• Application: It tests the independence between two categories such as the percentage of shifts worked in charge (less than 25% vs. more than 25% of shifts in charge) and the frequency of events reported (no event, 1-2 events, 3–21 events).

Two-tailed t-test for Independent Groups:

• Purpose: Although technically a parametric test, it is used here assuming non-normal distribution could be tolerated given large sample sizes or robustness of the t-test. It aims to compare means between two independent groups who do not share charge experience.
• Application: The test compares the mean scores for perceptions of safety between nurses with charge experience and those without.

Results of Their Use:

Results from Pearson’s Chi-square Test:

• Findings: Significant variations were observed in the reporting of events among nurses with different levels of charge responsibilities. Nurses with more than 25% shifts in charge reported a higher number of safety incidents (3 to 21 events) compared to those with less than 25% of shifts in charge or no charge experience. This suggests that charge nurses may be more aware or more diligent in reporting potential safety issues or incidents.
• Statistical Output: Chi-square value was 13.240 with a p-value of .010, indicating statistical significance in the differences observed among the groups.

Results from Two-tailed t-test:

• Findings:
  • Nurses with no charge experiencehad a higher overall perception of safety (mean = 3.46) compared to those with some charge experience (mean = 3.27); t(374) = 2.86, P = .005.
  • The number of events reported was higher among nurses with some charge experience(mean = 2.31) than those without (mean = 2.06); t(368) = -3.35, P = .001.
• Implication: These results suggest that having charge responsibilities may influence nurses’ perceptions negatively, possibly because charge nurses are more exposed to the complexities and risks inherent in their roles which might lower their overall safety perception.

The nonparametric tests used in the study effectively highlighted significant differences in safety perceptions and reporting behaviors between charge and non charged nurses. These results are critical as they suggest that the role and experience level in charge positions can significantly impact how safety culture is perceived and reported in healthcare settings. This understanding can help tailor interventions and support mechanisms for charge nurses to enhance patient safety outcomes (Turhan 2020).

 Parametric methods like t-tests and ANOVA are generally favored for their statistical power and ability to handle complex designs (Yu, et al. 2022). However, their appropriateness hinges on several key assumptions about the data they are applied to. When these assumptions are violated, the reliability and validity of the test results are compromised. Here’s why these methods might be inappropriate for the research study’s data involving charge and non charged nurses’ perceptions of patient safety culture:

Assumptions of Parametric Tests

Parametric tests, including t-tests and ANOVA, rely on the following assumptions:

Normality: Data should be normally distributed within groups. This assumption is crucial because parametric tests are based on the distribution of the means and heavily rely on the mean and standard deviation as measures of central tendency and dispersion.

Homogeneity of Variances: The variance among the groups should be equal. When comparing group means, as in ANOVA or t-tests, the assumption is that all groups have the same variance. If variances are unequal, the probability estimates about the means may be off.

Interval or Ratio Level Data: The data should be on an interval scale (where numerical distances between values are meaningful) or a ratio scale (which has a meaningful zero).

Independence: Observations must be independent of each other, which is typically satisfied by proper random sampling and assignment in experimental designs.

Specific Concerns in the Study

Normality:

• Example: Nurse perceptions of safety might not be normally distributed. For instance, it’s common in survey data for responses to skew towards more positive or more negative ends, especially in fields like healthcare where respondent bias towards socially desirable answers (e.g., overrating safety) can skew distributions.
• Impact: Using t-tests or ANOVA without normal distribution can lead to incorrect conclusions about significant differences due to the effect of outliers or skewed data. This can either inflate type I errors (false positives) or increase type II errors (false negatives).

Homogeneity of Variances:

• Example: Variance in the number of events reported could differ significantly between nurses with different charge responsibilities — perhaps less experienced nurses report fewer events due to less familiarity with protocols, resulting in unequal variances across groups.
• Impact: If variances are unequal (a condition known as heteroscedasticity), standard parametric tests can yield erroneous results because these tests assume equal variability among the groups.

Sample Size and Distribution Shape:

• Example: The study’s groups (charge vs. noncharged nurses) might have different sample sizes, which can exacerbate the effects of non-normality in data, particularly if the smaller group is highly skewed.
• Impact: Non-normality is particularly problematic in smaller samples. Parametric tests might then misrepresent the actual p-values, affecting the study’s findings and conclusions.

Alternative Approaches

Given these potential issues, nonparametric tests might be more suitable because they do not assume normality or equal variances:

• Mann-Whitney U Test(instead of t-tests): This test is used for comparing two independent samples, especially beneficial when the data are ordinal or not normally distributed (Sundjaja, et al. 2023).
• Kruskal-Wallis Test(instead of ANOVA): This test compares more than two groups and is used when the assumption of normality is not met. It is a generalization of the Mann-Whitney U test to more than two groups (UVA 2020).

 While parametric tests provide powerful means for statistical analysis under correct conditions, their use in the context of the described research might lead to misleading results due to the violation of assumptions like normality and homogeneity of variances. Employing nonparametric tests, which are less sensitive to these assumptions, would likely offer more reliable insights into the differences in safety culture perceptions among nurses with varying levels of charge responsibility. This approach ensures that the findings are robust and reflective of true underlying patterns in the data, rather than artifacts of assumption violations (Vrbin 2022).

 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research study (e.g., study design, sampling, and measurement)?

The research study examining differences in perceptions of patient safety culture between charge and noncharged nurses within a healthcare setting presents various strengths and weaknesses associated with its design, sampling, and measurement methodologies. Analyzing these aspects can help assess the robustness of the study’s findings and suggest areas for improvement in future research.

Strengths:

Study Design:

• Descriptive, Correlational, and Cross-Sectional: This design allows for the examination of relationships between variables (charge status and perceptions of safety culture) at a single point in time, which is practical for assessing current conditions and identifying existing associations without requiring long-term follow-up.
• Clearly Defined Variables: The study defines its primary variables, including the roles of charge and noncharged nurses and various dimensions of patient safety culture, which aids in precise data collection and analysis.

Sampling:

• Large Sample Size: The sample includes 375 nurses, which provides sufficient data for statistical analysis and helps ensure that the findings are stable and reliable.
• Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: By setting clear criteria (e.g., nurses with at least six months of experience, excluding LPNs and nurse managers), the study targets a specific population of interest and controls for potential confounding variables.

Measurement:

• Use of Established Survey Instrument: Utilizing the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, which has been validated in previous research, lends credibility to the measurement process and enables comparison with other studies.
• Reliability Indicators Provided: Reporting Cronbach’s alpha for the scales used (e.g., .70 for overall perceptions of safety) provides transparency about the reliability of the measures.

Weaknesses:

Study Design:

• Cross-Sectional Nature: While practical, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causality between charge nurse status and safety culture perceptions. Longitudinal designs would be needed to establish causal relationships and track changes over time.
• Single Institution Study: Conducting the study in a single academic medical center may limit the generalizability of the findings to other settings, such as community hospitals or clinics in different geographic areas.

Sampling:

• Potential Selection Bias: The use of a convenience sample may introduce bias, as participants who are available or willing to respond might differ systematically from those who do not participate. This could affect the representativeness of the sample.
• Lack of Randomization: Without random selection of participants, it’s challenging to ensure that the sample accurately reflects the broader population of nurses, potentially limiting the external validity of the findings.

Measurement:

• Subjective Self-report Data: Relying on nurses’ self-reported perceptions can introduce response biases (social desirability or recall biases), where participants might overrate their safety practices or underreport negative incidents.
• Single Source Data: Collecting all data from the same source (nurse respondents) without triangulation (e.g., patient outcomes, peer reports) may affect the depth of understanding and reliability of the findings related to patient safety culture.

Statistical Analysis:

• Assumption Violations for Parametric Tests: The potential non-normality of the data and unequal variances across groups suggest that parametric tests (t-tests, ANOVA) may not be the most appropriate methods, risking type I and type II errors. The use of nonparametric tests could have been a better choice given the data characteristics.

 

How could the findings and recommendations of the research study contribute to evidence-based practice for nursing?

 The findings and recommendations from the research study examining the perceptions of patient safety culture between charge nurses and non charged nurses provide critical insights that can be instrumental in shaping evidence-based practice (EBP) in nursing. Here’s how these contributions could manifest:

 Improving Patient Safety Interventions

Findings: The study revealed that charge nurses report more safety incidents than noncharged nurses, possibly due to their heightened awareness and leadership responsibilities.

Contributions to EBP:

• Targeted Safety Training: Insights from the study can guide the development of tailored safety training programs that address specific needs of charge and non charged nurses. This could include situational awareness, risk identification, and error reporting.
• Leadership Development Programs: Enhance leadership skills among charge nurses, focusing on effective communication, problem-solving, and crisis management to further foster a proactive safety culture.

Enhancing Implementation of Practice Guidelines

Findings: Differences in safety culture perceptions between nurse categories suggest that uniform strategies might not be effective across all nursing roles.

Contributions to EBP:

• Customized Implementation Strategies: Use the findings to design role-specific approaches for implementing practice guidelines. For instance, charge nurses could benefit from strategies that leverage their influence and leadership, while staff nurses might need more supportive and instructional approaches.
• Incorporate Frontline Input: Charge nurses, given their critical role and unique perspective, should be involved in the planning stages of new safety practices or guidelines to ensure the strategies are realistic and applicable.

 Policy Development and Organizational Change

Findings: The study highlights the importance of organizational context in shaping perceptions of safety culture.

Contributions to EBP:

• Policy Revisions: Recommendations could inform policy changes that support an organizational structure conducive to effective safety practices, such as clear role definitions and responsibilities for charge nurses.
• Change Management: Utilize charge nurses as champions for change who can effectively communicate and implement safety initiatives among their peers.

 Strengthening Safety Culture

Findings: Positive safety culture perceptions correlate with lower adverse events, emphasizing the role of cultural factors in patient outcomes.

Contributions to EBP:

• Cultural Competence Training: Develop and integrate cultural competence training into ongoing education for nurses to enhance understanding and execution of safety practices.
• Continuous Feedback Mechanisms: Establish systems that enable continuous feedback from all nursing levels to monitor and improve the safety culture dynamically.

 Research and Continuous Improvement

Findings: The cross-sectional study design points to the need for more dynamic research approaches to fully understand temporal and causal relationships.

Contributions to EBP:

Longitudinal Research: Advocate for longitudinal studies that can track changes in safety culture over time and assess the impact of specific interventions.

Data-Driven Decisions: Encourage the use of data analytics in nursing practice to identify trends, predict outcomes, and tailor interventions based on real-time data.

The research study’s findings on the differential perceptions of patient safety culture among charge and noncharged nurses serve as a valuable resource for developing, refining, and implementing evidence-based practices. By recognizing and addressing the unique contributions and needs of different nursing roles, healthcare institutions can better design interventions that not only enhance patient safety but also improve nurse satisfaction and effectiveness. These adaptations ensure that evidence-based practices in nursing are not only theoretical ideals but are practically applicable, leading to measurable improvements in healthcare outcomes (Eylul 2020).

 Conclusion:

 The research study investigating the differences in perceptions of patient safety culture between charge nurses and noncharged nurses provides crucial insights that can significantly influence evidence-based practices in nursing. By identifying how perceptions vary by role, the study underscores the need for tailored approaches in training, policy development, and practice implementation that consider the unique perspectives and responsibilities of different nurse categories. Specifically, the findings suggest that integrating charge nurses in the planning and execution of safety protocols can leverage their leadership roles to enhance overall safety culture. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of adapting safety interventions to match the specific context and needs of staff nurses, thereby improving the effectiveness of these measures. Ultimately, the research calls for continuous improvement through role-specific strategies, longitudinal studies, and a proactive involvement of nurses at all levels in fostering a robust patient safety environment. This focused approach not only promises to improve patient care but also to enhance the work environment for nurses by aligning safety culture with the realities of their daily practices (Breedlove, et al. 2022).

 

References:

Breedlove, D., Amiri, A., Arris, L. (2022). Evaluating the Efficacy of an Evidence-Based Charge Nurse Professional Development Activity at a Highly Complex Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Journal of Nursing Professional Development. 38(2). 19-24. doi: 10.1097/NND.00000000000824.

Eylul, D. (2020). The relationship between Charge nurses and Clinical nurse’s perceptions of patient safety culture and leadership practices. ResearchGate. 14(1) 333-339. doi: 10.46483/deuhfed.743446.

Sundjaja, J., Shrestha, R., Krishan, K. (2023). McNemar and Mann-Whitney U Tests. StatPearls. July 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560699/.

Turhan, N. (2020). Karl Pearson’s chi-square tests. Academic Journals. 15(9) 575-580. doi: 10.5897/ERR2019.3817.

University of Virginia Library. (2021). Getting Started with the Kruskal-Wallis Test. https://library.virginia.edu/data/articles/getting-started-with-the-kruskal-wallis-testLinks to an external site.

 Vrbin, C. (2022). Parametric or nonparametric statistical tests: Considerations when choosinf the most appropriate option for your data. Cytopathology. 33(6) 663-667. doi: 10.1111/cyt.13174.

Wilson, D., Redman, R., Talsma, A., & Aebersold, M. (2012). Differences in perceptions of patient safety culture between charge and noncharged nurses: Implications for effectiveness outcome. Nursing Research and Practice, 2012, 1–7. doi:10.1155/2012/847626

Yu, Z., Guindani, M., Grieco, S., Chen, L., Holmes, T., Xu, X. (2022). Beyond t-test and ANOVA: Applications of mixed-effects models for more rigorous statistical analysis in neuroscience research. ScienceDirect. 1(5) 21-35. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.10.030.

 

Name: NURS_8201_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

		Excellent 90–100	Good 80–89	Fair 70–79	Poor 0–69
Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.		40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references.	31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references.	0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting: Timely and full participation		9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_8201_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

You have written an engaging and thoughtful post, which thoroughly gives a comprehensive analysis of Leigh et al. (2020). The use of nonparametric tests, especially the Kruskal-Wallis H test, to discover what determines protection motivation in emergency nurses during the Ebola outbreak is an example of statistical methodology knowledge (Leigh et al., 2020). The case with the gender difference in self-efficacy, supported by post hoc Dunn–Bonferroni tests, serves to deepen the discussion and provide new ideas. I like your idea of choosing not to adopt parametric approaches because data distribution assumptions also give an apparent reason for the decisions made in statistics (Fife, 2020). It is important to note that you discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the research with emphasis on its strong sample size and number of demographic variables while identifying limitations such as cross-section design and response bias.

Furthermore, your ability to link the study’s results to evidence-based nursing practice shows a pragmatic approach that implies critical thought about the broader implications of this research. As a whole, your post is brief and detailed while elaborating on both statistical complexities and practical utilization in the realm of nursing research. Thank you. I look forward to interacting and sharing new ideas in the future. All the best.

References 

Fife, D. (2020). The eight steps of data analysis: A graphical framework to promote sound statistical analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(4), 1054-1075. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620917333Links to an external site..

Leigh, L., Taylor, C., Glassman, T., Thompson, A., & Sheu, J. J. (2020). A cross-sectional examination of the factors related to emergency nurses’ motivation to protect themselves against an Ebola infection. Journal of emergency nursing, 46(6), 814-826