Were the follow-up assessments long enough to fully study the effects of the intervention?
Is the treatment feasible in my clinical setting? (i.e. has enough time been allowed to measure outcomes & the process of implementing the intervention).
Yes – RCT is the gold standard study. 82 episodes of handwashing were included in the study.
What are my patients and their families values and expectations for the outcomes and the treatment itself?
Patients expect a high standard of care, which includes an aseptic surgical scrub by the surgeon prior to surgery, to prevent them from acquiring a HAI from bacterial contamination of the surgeons hands in case the sterile glove perforates.
Table above: Summary of Critical Appraisal Results (Fineout-Overholt et al., 2010 Criteria):
READING 3 Continued: Hajipour, Longstaff, Cleeve, Brewster, Bint & Henman, 2006.
Summary of Critical Appraisal Results (Fineout-Overholt et al., 2010 Criteria):
READING 4: Larson, Cimiotti, Haas, Parides, Nesin, Della-Latta, & Saiman, 2005.
Are the results valid? Ask:
Were the subjects randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups?
No (Clinical trial using crossover design)
Was random assignment concealed from the individuals enrolling the subjects?
No – potential for bias.
Were the subjects and providers blind to the study group?
No – potential for researcher bias.
Were reasons given to explain why subjects didnt complete the study?
Yes – 12 nurses withdrew: 9 left the neonatal ICU and 3 no longer wanted to participate.
Were the follow-up assessments long enough to fully study the effects of the intervention?
Yes – Data collection periods were March 1, 2001 to January 31, 2002, (year 1), and March 1, 2002, to January 31, 2003, (year 2), with a one month hiatus (February 2002) for product crossover.
Were the subjects analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned?
N/A
ORDER THIS PAPER NOW AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Code "Newclient"
