RUA: Analyzing Published Research The purpose of this paper is to interpret the two articles identified as most important to the group topic. Please see the attached rubric and documents for instructe
0
Seeking an Examined Scope of Patient Interactions
Adrianna F. Pierson
Chamberlain University College of Nursing
NR 449-62369: Evidence-Based Practice
Professor K. Cross
March 22, 2021
Seeking an Examined Scope of Patient Interactions
The systematic analysis of any clinical issue functions minimally to institute facts, draw inferences, and broaden knowledge. The major talking points associated with clinical cases prove inherently valuable in support of health reformation and outcomes. The macro and micro viewpoints of a specified research design collectively pinpoint a result of optimal credibility. The independent researcher’s skill in performing the systematic review will lend to the clinical query’s quality and validity. (Houser, 2018)
Clinical Question
The content set apart to the cohort distinctly originates from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). According to the AHRQ (2018), the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) strategically acts to resolve or improve the aggregation of relations patients face within a healthcare system. Since its inception, CAHPS promotes and utilizes independent research to study client interactions, evaluate data collections, and employ outcomes toward superior care standards. Furthermore, the Consumer Assessments of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) is a program that notably produces the most accomplished implement to measure patient experience. (AHRQ, 2018) Specifically, the Clinician and Group (CG)-CAHPS survey is the elected patient experience study in patients’ primary care (Holt, 2019). The overall patient experience is an essential talking point in the initiative toward resolving or improving client-centered care issues. (AHRQ, 2018)
In viewing healthcare as a business, the growing need for better patient experiences has sparked the shrewd business acumen of those individuals serving in the environment. The profession of care profits from evidence-based practices that prompts innovation and growth. Patients’ interactions directly correlate to the quality, safety, and efficiency of clinical processes and health outcomes. Some examples may include measures of the level of communication, management, prevention, intervention, performance, and turnaround times. Consequently, the cohort investigates the relationship between patient experience and the accountability, advancement, quality, and perspective of care provided in varying healthcare environments. (AHRQ, 2018)
The framework and response to the inquiry regarding the examination and treatment of patients will explicate from the progression of the following elements: population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time (PICOT). (Houser, 2018) The population applies to a sample of patients influenced by primary care providers’ vast roles and responsibilities throughout the lifespan. The intervention entails implementing tools to assess patient experiences toward modifications that improve standards of care and treatment. The comparison is to evaluate the original assessment tool in contrast to a new implement that skillfully communicates the facilitation of a therapeutic relationship that sparks a continuum of innovative development. The outcome is to refine the capacity to engage and perpetuate patients within a high-value health care system. Time will reflect the duration of related data collections and the anticipated monitoring of results (Houser, 2018). In this instance, the following PICOT question comes to mind: In primary care patients, what effect does the closed-ended questions of the (CG)-CAHPS survey have on improving patient experience and population toward better standards of care and treatment compared with arranging closed- and open-ended questions to the survey within a one-month duration? The paper aims to report the key concepts utilized to search databases for two articles that involve the subject, CAHPS, assigned to the cohort specifically.
Levels of Evidence
The two variations of the (CG)-CAHPS survey are interventions implemented to contrast for some time. Therefore, this clinical query classifies as a therapy type that includes the concept of intervention. Additionally, this highlighted matter of interest integrates both a qualitative and quantitative design approach. To exemplify, the synthesis of objectives and conclusions may include any combination of social reactions and interactions or the measurement of the intervention’s effect. A systematic review and meta-analysis of a random control trial would optimally produce an outcome within this evidence-based practice guideline with a high level of evidence. All credible data and research would need examining for use. Mixed methods of research enhance the production of thematic analysis and hypothesis. (Houser, 2018)
Search Strategy
Upon locating the Chamberlain University library, the research included identifying the following key concepts of terminology associated with the assigned subject: CAHPS and patient experience. The database search uses a good database selection. By utilizing the above terminologies in a separate order within the SAGE Journals database, the scholarly search led interactively to no access barriers to initial research and review articles. Several journal articles were populated. As a result, 312 articles and a whopping 407, 974 articles compiled in a respective order of terminology. A couple articles were initially used to gather and support understanding of the assigned topic. By placing both search terminologies together, the result reduced to 259 articles for review. Refining search results to the currency of Chamberlain University policy narrows publication dates to the last five years and decreases results to 104 articles for review. By limiting the search to only research articles, results decreased to 83 articles for review. Articles without barriers to access decreased the results to 37 articles for review. Lastly, through the remaining journal articles, a manual filter led to finding two corresponding articles that relationally contrasted two varying interventions. This, in turn, sparked the formation of the components expressed in the PICOT question that postulates a comparison in support of the cohorts’ goals. The first article, “Patient Experience in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of CG-CAHPS Surveys,” highlights the use of only close-ended questions on the survey tool implemented to measure patient experience (Holt, 2019). The second article, “CAHPS and Comments: How Closed-Ended Survey Questions and Narrative Accounts Interact in the Assessment of Patient Experience,” evaluates arranging both open- and close-ended questions on the same survey tool (Martino et al., 2017).
Conclusion
The paradigm of research the cohort makes practical and effective for use is ultimately dependent upon several factors. Initially, the interpretation of the perception of self about clinical and global issues is essential. This fact imposes a dramatic impact upon the views and thoughts applied to processes toward establishing credible research. The PICOT process to establish a clinical query exemplifies this reality. By applying this conscious viewpoint and a mixed research method, the cohort will discover appropriate resolutions and interventions to problems stemming from patient experience.
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2018). The CAHPS Program. AHRQ. https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/about-cahps/cahps-program/index.html.
Holt, J. M. (2019). Patient Experience in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of CG-CAHPS Surveys. Journal of Patient Experience, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373518793143
Houser, J. (2018). Nursing research: Reading, using, and creating evidence (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.
Martino, S. C., Shaller, D., Schlesinger, M., Parker, A. M., Rybowski, L., Grob, R., Cerully, J. L., & Finucane, M. L. (2017). CAHPS and Comments: How Closed-Ended Survey Questions and Narrative Accounts Interact in the Assessment of Patient Experience. Journal of Patient Experience, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373516685940