Nursing

Qualifications for the three researchers are listed as follows:

Gift (RN, PhD – Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing)

The researchers conducted a survey of five questions related to suctioning. Funding source is not provided, though it is assumed the three nurses incorporated the cost of production and distribution of surveys on their own.

The researchers clearly, simply and at the outset of the article provide their purpose for the research. The stated purpose of the survey research twofold and reads as follows: “The purpose of our study was to determine the extent of use of this procedure among healthcare personnel, especially those who do suctioning often, and to ascertain the perceived benefits and adverse effects of instilling normal saline before suctioning” (Schwenker, Ferris and Gift, 1998, 255). Another purpose of the study is listed as the authors’ objective: “To determine when and how often saline is used during suctioning and to assess the knowledge of nurses and respiratory therapists of the advantages and dangers of using saline during endotracheal suctioning” (Schwenker, et al., 1998, 255).

. . .
Former studies focused on disposable vials only as a risk of infection, while Hagler and Traver (1994) focused on risk of infection from removed endotracheal tubes. The authors logically build a case for conducting the new study. They provide historical perspective on the issue and present research that is current and related to their own. However, by showing the strengths as well as the weaknesses of previous research, the authors make a good case for showing why their own study is needed: “We know of no study that examined the practice of all professionals who routinely do suctioning” (Schwenker, et al., 1998, 256). V. Hypothesis/Problem Statement Instillation of normal saline before suctioning is a common practice. The authors have devised the present study to determine if such practices are based on myths or actual benefits of the practice. As the authors note about their survey, “Questions were devised to test knowledge of this literature and to determine current practices of instilling saline before suctioning” (Schwenker, et al., 1998, 257). The authors do not make a clear problem statement nor pose any hypotheses. Instead, the authors talk around the problem as opposed to issuing a clear problem statement. F
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Statement Instillation, Interpretation Findings, XIV Recommendations, Sampling Sample, Bostick Wendelgass, Hagler Traver, Data Analysis, Demers Saklad, Review Literature, Focus Significance, respiratory therapists, normal saline, et al, schwenker et, schwenker et al, et al 1998, al 1998, instillation normal saline, instillation normal, nurses respiratory, nurses respiratory therapists, saline instillation, saline suctioning, normal saline suctioning, review literature,
Approximate Word count = 2420
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Nursing