Research Critique, Part 1
Grand Canyon University: NRS-433V
April 03, 2016

Research Critique, Part 1
While reading a research article, it is important to be able to critique the article properly. A thorough critique would enable the reader to make an educated opinion with regards to the scientific study. In this paper, a research article about urinary catheter removal after surgery will be critiqued. The problem statement, purpose and research questions, literature review and conceptual/theoretical framework will be reviewed. Problem Statement Catheterization is a frequently part of care for various surgical procedures. The study confirmed that patients lacked knowledge in catheterization and most of the patients were limited in decision making on when the catheter was to be removed. The clinical problem and research problem that led to the study being carried in the clinic was that the use of urinary catheter on patients, whom had not vacated the hospital. This lead to advanced bacterial settlement in the bladder at a rate of about 5% on a daily basis (Bhardwaj, et al., 2012). The increasing threat of the CAUTI infection steered the adoption of major interventions for the lifesaving initiative. The motive of the study was to reduce chances of the patients who had surgical experience and had been catheterized from being infected with CAUTI. Repetitive placement of a urinary catheter for lengthier period of more than two days after surgery was found to escalate the risk of CAUTI. Most patients lacked the knowledge in the fact that it was riskier for catheter to be routinely placed for more than two days after surgery. If patients had this information, most of CAUTI infections could have been prevented. According to some patients, they had no knowledge in catheters before their surgery; generally, it was a new experience for most of them. For example, some participants, were not knowledgeable of the idea that they could have preferred the removal of the catheter earlier enough to avoid risk of acquiring infection. This was regardless of the pain they were to experience during urination and how far the toilets were located. One of the participants was under the impression that the necessity for catheterization was not considered extensively during the surgery preparation; he believed that it was an important procedure and needed to be taken seriously. For this reason, the staff members should ensure the information about catheterization is available to the patients before the onset of the surgery so that after the surgery patients were not to be emotionally affected. The significance of this study came to pass when most of the participants after being interview revealed their suffering was caused by lack of information about catheters. Some of the statements given by some participants revealed that most of the patients were mostly affected by lack of information (Bhardwaj, et al., 2012). Most were anxious on the removal because they thought it could involve another surgery and for this reason they got distressed. Four participants experienced symptoms of urinary infections after catheter removal; they felt a strange sensation of burning after urination. Due to these reasons, this study was very significant. It targeted on exploring patient’s beliefs and perceptions regarding peri-operative urinary catheterization and related patient’s beliefs on future practices. Purpose and research questions The studies mostly targeted the control of CAUTI infection among surgical patients. It was also to provide sufficient information about catheterization to the patients. The biggest aim of the study was to be able to answer a few questions. Was the uncertainty triggered by lack of information? How much knowledge did patients have on catheter insertion? Did patients have knowledge in the process of catheter removal and environmental impact? What were patient’s recommendations about catheter removal? What were the concerns and perceptions surrounding patient autonomy? The study was all about urinary infection resulting from delayed removal of catheters and most of the entire question were trying to find a solution of the problem statement thus, for this reason the purpose of the research question was relative to the research problem. Literature Review Most of the participants involved in the study lacked knowledge on how and when to remove the catheter. The quantitative methods used in the study of the research question were appropriate because it helped in analyzing the findings of the study. Upon analyzing the author’s citation of the study it was realized that the study was significant to both the quantitative and qualitative citation. Most of the references were recent, three to four years in difference from the year of the study and also other references were older than five years, which helped in quantitative study for example Lincoln (1985) contribution. In this study the author outlined some of the drawbacks one of them being that a small sample section of patients that were from a single surgical specialty was a limiting factor. Secondly the study did not combine methods such as a questionnaire to increase the sample magnitude. According to the findings of the study, the information gathered was adequate to logical argument about the fact that delayed removal of catheter was leading to patient’s contraction of infections through the examination of the symptoms shown by some of the patients (Bhardwaj, et al., 2012). Most of the uncertainties were associated with lack of information. One of the female participants who took part in the study highlighted that there was no sufficient information provided to her prior her surgery. This resulted in a need for to search for information online, which was of help to her after the surgery. Conceptual/Theoretical Framework The perspective from which the study was developed revolved around the length of time it should take after surgery before a catheter is removed from the patient. The longer the time the catheter stayed in the patient, the more chances the patient was likely to be infected. Considering the findings of the study, a link was established between catheter duration and CAUTI risks. Most of the health facility staff were to be largely involved in controlling patient’s anxiety and uncertainty regarding urinary catheterization rather than generalizing it as a routine (Bhardwaj, et al., 2012). Information about catheters was to be given to all patients and mostly to those who needed short-term catheterization related to formalized consent. This information could have reduced catheter length. Conclusion Health care should provide clear information to the patients in order to avoid cases of infection after surgical procedures. A good knowledge will help patients be involved in decision making on when the catheter is to be removed after surgery. According to this study it can be concluded that delayed removal of urinary catheters led to most symptoms of CAUTI infection. As long as the patients had a good knowledge of catheter this could have been avoided. The problem statement, purpose and research questions, literature review and conceptual/theoretical framework that was critiqued in this paper gives the reader an educated opinion on this research study.

References
Bhardwaj, R., Pickard, R., Carrick-Sen, D., & Brittain, K. (2012). Patients’ perspectives on timing of urinary catheter removal after surgery. British Journal of Nursing, 21(18), S4-S9. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4905f5c1-e014-4f8d-bcbf-87dd34c30380%40sessionmgr4005&vid=7&hid=4102