- Identify a project currently or previously conducted at your place of employment.
- Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the project’s qualitative and quantitative design and its impact of practice.
- Examples of work related projects are:
– Radification or reduction by 53.4% in employees exposures to airborne infections
with the use of a high-powered negative air flow system.
-Medication error reductions by 75% with new EMR and the strategified high risk
-Increased nursing retention and satisfaction with the mentor/mentee program for
professional career advancement.
- Do not mention of the name of your organization.
- Support your statements with at least two peer-reviewed articles.
Here is how you can approach the question:
Two years ago, a project on the use of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was implemented in
my place of work. On evaluation, the project was both qualitative and quantitative citing its
emphasis on effective communication and the nurse’s viewpoint on the importance of
communication in the healthcare facility, respectively.
The nurse’s experience provided compelling data on the qualitative design of the project. It
allowed for the exploration of all sources of knowledge as it regard the usage of EMR’s and their
contribution to the development of the institution. It focused on the natural context without the
urge to control or change the context of study. Data was collected based on the user experiences
and citing large user turn out; a large volume of data was collected using the qualitative design
and therefore, the diversity of responses was very useful. However to its disadvantage, most of
the data was bias making it very unreliable and hence, could not be used independently (Yin,
The quantitative design on the other side turned out to be very reliable. This approach analyzed
the topic using a standardized approach eliminating cases of biasness through the use of distinct
variables. The quantitative designs ensured that the applied factors produced the desired
outcomes. Also, critical comparisons were made to ensure that data was correctly interpreted.
The quantitative design eliminated threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the
study (Creswell, 2014).
Findings were discussed and interpreted within the context of the study. By using both designs, it
was ascertained that EMR’s provide Hospitals with data collection tools to support healthcare
management and reporting (Kern Etal, 2012). Effectively used, EMR’s can reduce medical error
by as much as 75%. In this, they have been successful in not just collecting and storing data, but
also at connecting care gap reports with the ability to alert patients that need to be seen. Also,
programmed risk stratification of patients founded on the information of their EMR’s can be
used to accurately pinpoint a high-risk population of patients (Makary & Daniel, 2016).
In the whole, the study provided evidence-based literature that can be used to guide nurses on the
use of EMR’s, based on the recommendations that the study offers.
A year ago, a project on effective communication and efficiency in surgery was undertaken in my place of work. This project was both quantitative and qualitative following its focus on the economic impact of communication, and the nurse’s perspective on the role of communication in the hospital. This project showcased significant strengths and weaknesses in its qualitative and quantitative design. On using the qualitative design, the project attained more compelling data as it was based on the experiences of the nurses. The qualitative design allowed the project to exclusively cover the topic of interest since it did not restrict the interviewers to specific questions. However, the information gathered was greatly influenced by the personal biases of the participants. Thus, the reliability was altered and the information provided could not be used independently. Besides, following a large number of participants engaged in the project, the qualitative design produced a large volume of data that made the interpretation and analysis to be time-consuming (Yin, 2013).
On the other hand, the quantitative design stood out as being reliable following its standardized approach to exploring the project’s topic. Unlike the quantitative approach, the qualitative design was able to drop biased views since it involved a few variables (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2013). Majority of the variables used were unknown to the researchers, thus, eliminated bias in the project. Therefore, correlating the independent and the dependent variables was made easy. However, despite the elimination of bias, the use of the standardized procedures exposed the project to structural bias (Yin, 2013).
In this case, a majority of the conclusions were based on the views of the researchers, and not the nurses who were the respondents. Besides, the quantitative design lacked the compelling feature since it was numerical, and lacked human perception. By using the combined designs, it was concluded that communication played a significant role in reducing the medical problems and infections such as the central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) (McAlearney & Henfer, 2014). By these findings, the project provided an evidence-based literature that has been used to foster efficiency in surgical operations.