NursingResearchT4Q1

2

Name

Instructor

School

Date

Critical Appraisal Using CASP Checklist:

To the best of my knowledge, this study used a method of prospective, two-site randomized control trial that comes out positive when comparing open vs. closed PIVC systems. For this research, the objective was defined concisely and straightforwardly: it had to identify which catheter system is most favorable for patients, staff, and the healthcare system if considering quality, safety, and costs. The authors were fair in the randomization method applied and inclusion criteria, hence making the results more valid. The measures used, such as the rates of complications and satisfaction of the clinicians, were relevant and good (Galang et al., 2020). 

However, there is no detail about blinding that may potentially create bias in the study. This follow-up period of 3 days seems reasonable for the acute results, such as catheter failure or discomfort.

Benefits vs. Harms: 

The study failed to demonstrate different levels of complications but indicated that the open-system catheter had more risks than benefits since it was associated with increased blood leakage and reduced clinician satisfaction. The closed-system catheter is safer and more cost-effective than the other type and is more preferred by patients as well as clinicians (Long et al., 2020).

Ethical Consideration:

One of the ethical concerns is to gain participants’ consent; these persons need to understand the risks associated with various types of catheter systems.

References

Galang, H., Hubbard-Wright, C., Hahn, D. S., Yost, G., Yoder, L., Maduro, R. S., Morgan, M. K., & Zimbro, K. S. (2020). A randomized trial comparing outcomes of 3 types of peripheral intravenous catheters. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 35(1), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000421

Long, H. A., French, D. P., & Brooks, J. M. (2020). Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis.  Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences,  1(1), 31-42. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2632084320947559