Critical Evaluation of Nursing Implementation: Bakari et al. (2017)

This essay presents a critical review of the research conducted by Bakari et al. (2017) regarding the implementation of the nursing process in selected hospitals. It assesses the appropriateness of the cross-sectional observational research design, the effectiveness of the sampling method, and the validity of the data collection tool. The critique highlights the relevance of the study's findings, particularly the low rate of nursing process implementation and the factors limiting its adoption. The essay also emphasizes the study's potential to inform interventions aimed at improving nursing practice and patient safety by addressing knowledge gaps and providing necessary resources. The analysis concludes that the study provides credible results that are useful for improving the implementation of the nursing process.

Critiquing Bakari et al. (2017)1
CRITIQUING BAKARI ET AL. (2017)
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

Critiquing Bakari et al. (2017)2
Introduction
The 35% of the subjects have implemented nursing process. Nurses working under
stressful workplace conditions remained 99% less probably to undertake implementation of
nursing process than those at enabling environment. Nurses with BSc Degree educational level
stood at 6.9720 times probably to undertake implementation of the nursing process than holders
of diploma qualification. Nurses without dependable, substantial supply to utilize the process of
nursing implementation stood at 95.10 percent less probably to effect the implementation of the
nursing process with a reliable material supply.
Critique
1. The Research Design
Cross-sectional observational was suitable because this study wanted to show the status
of implementation process among the nurses in a range of groups. The design presented the best
opportunity through the data could be gathered and analyzed to showcase the status. It brings a
bigger sample size which makes the finding to be readily generalized (Sedgwick 2014).
The sampling method was also effective based on process of a random lottery. Sample
allocation was efficient and sampling frame preparation. Simple random sampling was suitable
to select 200 participants from sampling frame. The structured-English version questionnaires
was an effective data collection tool and the validity of data determination through two experts
and seniors using Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86. The participants were all understanding English and
hence using this language in the questionnaire was appropriate.
Data quality assurance was ensured by training and orienting data collectors using a
principal investigator. Pre-testing the data collection tool on five percent of subjects two weeks
ahead of the actual collection was effective (Lipp and Fothergill 2015). This is because it

Critiquing Bakari et al. (2017)3
allowed consideration of necessary amendments and correction. Checking data for completeness
and missing info at every point was effective during collection whereas checking data at entry
and compilation ahead of analysis ensured quality data.
2. The Findings
Result has been presented based on words and figures like percentages, and this makes it
reinforced and easily understand (Baraki et al. 2017). For example, because the identified
problem that needed to be explored in this study was the problem of implementing the nursing
process, by choosing to present the result regarding percentage and accompanying them by
detailed word explanation was effective. The results of the study are effective as they show that
the status of nursing process implementation and the related variables amongst the nurses who
work at designated hospital (LoBiondo-Wood and Haber 2017).
The result has also been presented in specific sub-headings that makes the readers
effectively follow through per heading to understand what is being talked about. For example,
the authors have effectively used the subheading, “socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents.” By using this, the readers get to effectively have a glance view of the subjects of
the study (Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor 2005). Through this table, a reader can easily
understand the sex, marital status, educational and the associated frequency and percentage. This
is effective as it gives a visual impression rather than merely presenting the results in words. A
reader can easily peruse through the table to have a glace overview of the participants.
3. The Relevance
This study presents a relevant finding on the status of implementation of the nursing
process. By discovering that only 35% of the nursed had implemented the required process, this
study remains relevance and can be used as the stepping stone towards ensuring that all nurses

Critiquing Bakari et al. (2017)4
implement the process for the safety of their patients (Souto et al. 2015). It is clear that the
majority of the nurses had not implemented the desired process and neither did they use
NANDA. When all nurses shall have implemented the nursing process, the safety and health of
the patients will be guaranteed. This will ensure that there is quality provision of care without
putting the patients and the nurses at risks. This study also reveals that these nurses lacked
knowledge and only skilled moderately in process implementation (Buckley 2017). This is a
relevant finding because it will help ensure awareness on the implementation by training nurses
on the required knowledge and skills to the implementation process. As many nurses get the
required skills and knowledge, the rate of implementation will significantly increase. This is
relevant to the practice because, it will not only ensure safety of patients, but also make the
nursing staff to develop both personally and professionally. This will in turn lead to quality care
provision and hence a reduction in rates of readmission and the associated costs. The study has
also identified the factors that limit the implementation process. It will help ensure that the
necessary facilitating or drivers of implementation are availed.
Conclusion
This study has used effective design to present credible and reliable results useful in
improving the implementation nursing process. The use of cross-sectional observation design
was appropriate in exploring the topic or the problem because it covered a large area hence
requiring this specific design. Results are credible and presented using graphs, tables, and words
which reinforce each other hence making readers understand. The study will help in availing the
necessary drivers of implementation nursing process hence ensuring the safety of patients and
nurses.

Critiquing Bakari et al. (2017)5
References
Baraki, Z., Girmay, F., Kidanu, K., Gerensea, H., Gezehgne, D. and Teklay, H., 2017. A cross
sectional study on nursing process implementation and associated factors among nurses working
in selected hospitals of Central and Northwest zones, Tigray Region, Ethiopia. BMC
nursing, 16(1), p.54. http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/2981/1/developing-a-framework-for-criquing-
healt-research.pdf
Buckley, L., 2017. Critiquing research papers? Neigh bother, any RVN can do it!. Veterinary
Nursing Journal, 32(4), pp.115-117.
Caldwell, K., Henshaw, L. and Taylor, G., 2005. Developing a framework for critiquing health
research. Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues, 6(1), pp.45-54.
https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-017-0248-9
Grabenhenrich, L.B., Reich, A., McBride, D., Sprikkelman, A., Roberts, G., Grimshaw, K.E.,
Fiocchi, A.G., Saxoni‐Papageorgiou, P., Papadopoulos, N.G., Fiandor, A. and Quirce, S., 2018.
Physician's appraisal vs documented signs and symptoms in the interpretation of food challenge
tests: The EuroPrevall birth cohort. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 29(1), pp.58-65.
Lipp, A. and Fothergill, A., 2015. A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological
appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Nurse education today, 35(3), pp.e14-e17.
LoBiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J., 2017. Nursing Research-E-Book: Methods and Critical
Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Sedgwick, P., 2014. Cross sectional studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ: British
Medical Journal, 348.

Critiquing Bakari et al. (2017)6
Souto, R.Q., Khanassov, V., Hong, Q.N., Bush, P.L., Vedel, I. and Pluye, P., 2015. Systematic
mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the Mixed Methods
Appraisal Tool. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 52(1), pp.500-501.