The paper "Emergency Plastic Surgery Patient Management" is a good example of a literature review on nursing. The management of emergencies in plastic surgery proves to be a big problem and that delay in their treatment proves to be traumatic and time-consuming. In this regard, research was done to study the delays in the management of emergency patients and their possible causes. This research fails in some instances are far as the scientific rigor of research is concerned as explained below.
This is research had two projects where the two test involved recording the length of time taken during fasting for the patients to be taken to the definitive management and the second was involved in recording the time span from the time the person is injured to the time a real surgical procedure is taken. There were three units involved in this research whose main aim was to test the time taken from injury to the time taken for the procedure to be applied to the person.
However, this research fails in some instances. To start with, inferential statistics states that for a sample to be well represented, it should be collected using stratified sampling method were the subjects are subdivided according to their heterogeneity or random sampling in instances were the subjects are homogenous (Moore, D 2006). In this case, there is no mention of whether the sample collected using either of the two methods. Further, there is no mention of the sample size in the design of the study which should be the case. Further, there is no mention of how the two synchronized group’s participants were identified. This ought to be available to show that there was no bias and that the research meets the required scientific rigor.
In this research, there were no follow-up events to determine how the patients behaved after the surgery or how they were adapting to the new specifications. In addition, there is no evidence as to whether the subjects were made free consent into taking part in the study by signing a consent form.
In this case, there is no way one can tell whether from the sample size collected, that 80% completed. What is evident is that all those that are reported in the survey completed it without regard to the total number of participants. There is no mention of a control group in this case but the fact that two groups took in the research in the three units. According to Tufte, E (2001), a control group is always better placed to show the effects of a certain practice aimed at a certain group. He sums up by saying that, the usefulness of any kind of research is the way it relates to something existing.
A research tool is an instrument used to collect the data to be used in the analysis so as to be able to draw inferences about a certain thing, population, etc. (Barnes, 2004). The research instrument was a specific form designed for the study which was filled during the agreed time by the surgical staff. This tool is semi-effective in that, the staffs may have failed to notice some discrepancies in the time taken. In this regard, the patient should also be allocated a copy of the form to fill for comparison purposes so as to ensure the validity and reliability of the data. Further, the two determinants used in this study were are effective since as Pandya and Suhil et al. (2003) puts it, once one gets hurt, he/she faces a potential delay in the time taken before the surgical procedure; probably 24 hours.
The data analysis, in this case, is done at 95% Confidence Interval. This level is statistically accepted although 99% is the best in clinical research projects involving human beings. Actually, if 100% could be achieved is the best as it leaves no room for mistakes which could harm the person in the long term.
The outcome of the research is somehow acceptable since, in all surgical operations, the person faces a delay of almost 24 hours which are probably compounded by real anxiety which results from the prolonged starvation prior to the treatment.
In conclusion, the way the research was conducted explains vividly how it was done. However, it fails to show how the sample was collected as well as how the three units were developed. In addition, it fails in the analysis since according to Mailu, B (2004), the analysis results should be in such a way that, they provide a bird’s eye view of the outcomes such that, even a person who has no statistical knowledge can comprehend what is happening. The analysis, in this case, fails this test as the tables are not clear.