Critical analysis of a research paper

1. CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY CASP CHECKLIST
SECTION A: ARE THE RESULTS VALID?
CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON-
Vital signs monitoring and nurse–patient interaction: A qualitative observational study of
hospital practice1
.
Q1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
A. Yes
Comments- Researchers established clear research objectives in the beginning of the study
which are important and relevant and the entire data analysis was focused to fulfil the study
objectives.
Topic related to vital signs was thought significant by the researcher as this crucial aspect of
health care has received limited research attention1
.
Q2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?
A. Yes
Comments- Qualitative methods allow exploring concepts in more detail, here researchers
aimed to see the practice of vital sign monitoring among nurses and for that they have chosen
direct observation method which could led to bias instead video recording with informed
consent could be used to minimise the biasness.
Q3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?
A. Yes
Comments- Cross sectional research design and direct observation in the real hospital set up
have been used to monitor vital sign checking practice and nurse-patient interaction to address
the aims.
Q4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?
A. No
Comments- A limited number of 42 nurses of 2 particular wards was included in the research;
researcher used convenience sampling to select the wards and opportunistic sampling to choose
nurses. Researchers did not consider the nurses’ qualification and experience and they had
selected 2 wards from the same hospital. This leads to bias, generalisation can be questioned.

2. SECTION B: WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?
Q5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
A. No
Comments- Observations were conducted mostly during day times and during certain time
periods, besides researchers managed to observe only 50% of the nurses of each wards1
. So
the data collection was biased.
Q6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?
A. Can’t tell
Comments- Among three observers one had nursing background but other two did not have,
this could be a source of biasness during observation, moreover researchers could not figure
out the reason of non-compliance as they did not communicate with participants.
Q7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?
A. Yes
Comments- Ethical approval was taken from the South-Western Sydney Local Health District
Human Research Ethics Committee1
. Consent had been taken from participants prior to the
research.
Q8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
A. Can’t tell
Comments- All the parameters were carefully observed analysed and presented. But the
number of the participants were only limited to 42 so whether it was sufficient to generalise
the finding or not is arguable.
Q9. Is there a clear statement of findings?
A. Yes
Comments- All the findings were discussed in relation to the original research questions in
detail.
Q10. How valuable is the research?
Comments- This research is worthy, as there are not many studies conducted on this particular
aspect and this study result can be used to improve overall nursing practice. This research has
also opened the scope of further researches.

3. REFERENCE-
1. Cardona-Morrell M, Prgomet M, Lake R, Nicholson M, Harrison R, Long J,
Westbrook J, Braithwaite J, Hillman K. Vital signs monitoring and nurse–patient
interaction: A qualitative observational study of hospital practice. International
journal of nursing studies. 2016 Apr 1;56:9-16.
Submitted By-
Anvin Thomas
Staff Nurse - Anaesthetic and Recovery.
Date- 27/03/2022