The Rapid Clinical Appraisal tool was a laborious process, due to spending quite a bit time looking over all of the articles. Overtime, the process became quicker, which it made possible to delete articles that weren’t relevant to this project. According to Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2014, p.14), critical appraisal can be efficiently accomplished by answering three key questions as part of a rapid critical appraisal process in which studies are evaluated for their validity, reliability, and applicability to answer the posed clinical question.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
As a student/healthcare worker who is new to critical appraisal I am aware that I do not fully understand some of the calculations involved in reporting of findings, however Greenhalgh (2006) argued, ‘all you really need to know is what the best test is to apply in given circumstances, what it does and what might affect its validity/appropriateness’. When caring for patients it is essential that Healthcare Professionals
In a world of increasing competition for health resources economic evaluations are essential to provide evidence to decision makers that allows them to make appropriate decisions regarding the best use of those resources (Cohen and Reynolds, 2008; Williams et al., 2008). Critical appraisal is the means by which the validity of this research is assessed and is essential for true evidence based practice, and decision-making (Burls, 2009; Ciliska, Thomas and Buffett, 2008).
Once an area of evidence-based practice has been chosen for investigation, the reviewer must locate current evidence sources and, using a structured approach, assess each for applicability to the issue being investigated. The aim of this paper is to use a Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist (Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, 2011) to support these sources of evidence into a review that discusses the importance of daily, high-level, multidisciplinary communication and patient safety. The summaries of these evaluations will be provided as an appraisal of each study.
The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of a quantitative article using Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt’s (2015) rapid critical appraisal (RCA) for a randomized clinical trial. Topics included are the validity of the research, results of the research and how the information can be applied to the clinical care of my own patient population.
Evaluation will be performed utilizing the Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (Slutsky, 2005) and use of the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NCG), guideline summary (2016).
The purpose of the research review was to attempt to answer the question, does monitoring naturietic peptide twice a month for a month post discharge and altering treatment plan vs. monitoring naturietic as standard practice and altering treatment plan decrease readmission rates in Heart Failure patients after discharge from the hospital? The dependent variable was readmission of Chronic Heart Failure patients (CHF). In order to answer this question, the Cochrane Database was searched using the keywords natriuretic peptide, CHF and readmissions with no limits. The search provided 8 results. According to research naturietric peptide aids in showing the probability for readmission and can therefore
An important aspect involved in critical appraisal of a study involves identifying and evaluating the study framework. This allows the reader to determine whether it is appropriate to apply the study findings to nursing practice. The author of this study identified the specific perspective from which the study was developed. More specifically, the author sought to provide insight into the phenomenon of lay presence during adult CPR specifically from the perspective of ambulance staff and
Crucial essential appraisal drives the criteria for a comprehensive development master plan for a parent institution as well as proper program quality review every 5 years. Meaning, the employment of theoretical frameworks, concepts, including models assist the accreditation process for success in continued accreditation, results, more importantly, quality measures for a well-established program (Keating, 2015). In fact, administrators, notwithstanding, stakeholders, promote the institution’s mission, vision, purpose, although, fundamental goals cultivate a formidable educational program (Keating, 2015). Nevertheless, a master plan must be efficiently organized to meet academic standards, professionalism, above all, justifiable continuation
In this course, we had group critical appraisal paper. Initially, the appraisal explored the use of palliative care among minority groups, but only qualitative research appeared for this topic. Due to limit research articles, so we had group meeting and met with librarian to discuss searching strategy. A decision was made to change the intervention to acupuncture treatment with the comparator being standard opioid medication in the outcome of reducing pain in palliative care patients. This proved to be a more successful topic when searching for relevant research. Based on the highest level of available evidence, three articles were selected from PubMed.
Thinking about the most stressful thing that occurred this year was challenging. I found t primary appraisal to be the most difficult because at the time, I could not identify the exact stressor. Thinking back to this stressful time I realized that without any knowledge of Lazarus model I was able to move through each step of the appraisals. Secondary appraisal, during this difficult time I did not understand how much control I had over the situation. Since I have been through therapy for many years, I thought that I was coping with my stressors in a healthy way, but I was wrong. I did everything to avoid my stressors and did not use my resources. My behavior of avoiding my problem at hand stop by a resource reaching out to me. I was able
Additionally, there will be a table to summarise the key characteristics of the studies relevant to the clinical question. Furthermore, there will be a critical review of the findings and on how this review could be incorporated into practice with consideration to the facilitators and barriers to implementing evidence, and strategies to support a validated framework in my workplace. Finally, this paper will conclude with a brief summary of the main points
I am in agreement with your process of critical appraisals; identifying the steps in the research process, determining the strengths and weaknesses in the studies and evaluating the validity and credibility of the studies seem to be the root elements of critical appraisals. I appreciated the scholarly article you chose linking depression and mortality among diabetes mellitus patients, particularly because of the straightforwardness of the article. it seemed the conclusion and points of the article were straight forward and the article was easy to understand. If I could suggest any addition, it would be a way to verify the credibility of the study. maybe in this study in particular there is not much incentive for lack of credibility, but in
A comprehensive evidence base forms the backbone of a systematic appraisal. Systematic evidence gathering is done to minimize deficiencies database and quantification of limitations in database is analyzed with reflection of uncertainty in the results. A meta-analysis of all the evidence is done and critically appraised.