Introduction
Data Analysis
In each research, it is essential to have data analysis. According to the data presented in the study by Aiken et al. (2018), the data collection methods in the study were clearly explained in detail. Additionally, the article can make use of all the right techniques and procedures that are required when conducting research. As it is well known, the data collection should be systematic, impartial, exact, repeatable, valid, and trustworthy (Rapport et al., 2019).
Lack of trust in nurses or doctors and an increase in missed nursing care seriously damage patients’ perceptions of care. It is through medical professionals (21 nurses) and data collection from the various patients in the study (Aiken et al., 2018). This clearly shows that the researchers were able to use the data analysis methods in conducting the study and grouping the data in a certain criterion needed when analyzing research data (Themes, 2019). Consequently, the participants were chosen randomly, which clearly shows that the study was not targeting a specific group of people but wanted to get generalized quantitative data. For instance, the analysis used percentages as a method of calculation.
Results
The results were presented in the correct format, which entailed stating the findings without bias or interpretation and in logical sequence arrangement. Firstly, the results stated in the paper are factual and are based on real experiments.
The authors confirm this by indicating the number of patients and trusts involved, 66,348 and 161, respectively (Ewuzie, Aku, and Nwankpa, 2021). Additionally, these results were based on the subjects’ actions, including their feedback and actions toward patient care, and not the author’s knowledge (Aiken et al., 2018). Secondly, the results were presented in a logical manner in that the authors started with the ratings of nurses, doctors, and patient ratings of care before proceeding to the work environment and care (Munn et al., 2021; Bridges et al., 2019). Lastly, the results outlined the patient outcomes in scenarios of missed nursing care. This flow was logical as it showed the effects of nursing care in the presence and absence of nurses.
Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusions
Discussion
The presentation of the research discussion is logical as the data provided by the author is schematic. The authors integrate data where it is supposed to be included and which suits the context of the literature review (Aiken et al., 2018). For instance, to compare the relationship between nurse staffing, work environments and missed nursing care, the authors integrate data showing the percentage of nurses that missed roles such as pain management, and skin care, among others. This logical flow of data can be supported by Figure 2 of the research. Based on hypothesis rejection, the authors failed to explain whether their hypothetical concerns had been confirmed or nullified (Griffiths et al., 2020; Drennan et al., 2018).
However, the results presented by the paper indirectly confirm their supposition that patients’ perceptions are influenced by the number of doctors and nurses present in the hospital. Based on clinical significance, the paper suggests that England healthcare facilities should cherish employing more registered nurses to ensure there is a reduced number of missed nursing care which lowers patients’ satisfaction.
Recommendations
From the research study, the major recommendation that can be made in the healthcare sector in the UK when it comes to meeting the satisfaction of their patients. With this in mind, it will only be fitting that some modifications be made (Griffiths et al., 2018; Panagioti et al., 2018). Hence, the standard of the hospital work environment has been discovered to be a variable aspect of hospital treatment that is pertinent to patients’ impressions of their care (Aiken et al., 2018). Nursing care that is required but not provided is more widespread in hospitals where nurses assess the clinical work settings as less favorable. When more extensive care is missing, patients have fewer good opinions of the care they receive.
Consequently, according to the research study by Aiken et al., (2018), the hospital working environments need to help RNs deliver care effectively and efficiently without being constantly interrupted by operational issues like missing supplies or equipment. They are inexpensive interventions that positively impact patient outcomes for the same or less money spent while delivering much-needed care (Papanicolas et al., 2019). Hence, it is essential to have a good working environment.
Conclusions
The study clearly shows that Patients have a high level of confidence and trust in nurses, and when they feel there are not enough of them, they are less satisfied with the care they receive in hospitals (Chaboyer et al., 2021). The facts support the argument that “uncaring” nurses are to blame for the poor quality of care in English hospitals. Contrarily, our findings imply that improving hospital clinical care environments and ensuring an adequate number of RNs are at the hospital bedside are promising strategies for raising patient satisfaction with care (Karaca and Durna, 2019).
Furthermore, the study validated patient satisfaction, nurse staffing, hospital work environment, and missed nursing care measures across a significant number of NHS hospitals, among the many strengths. The study has its limitations (Pugh et al., 2019). Cross-sectional data from patients and nurses limit the ability to conclude the causes of the discovered relationships, which are built through communication (Lotfi et al., 2019). To the greatest extent possible, we consider alternate explanations for variables connected to our findings, such as hospital features like teaching status and patient characteristics in the national survey.
Reference List
Aiken, L. H. et al. (2018) ‘Patient satisfaction with hospital care and nurses in England: an observational study’, BMJ 0pen, 8(1), p. e019189. Web.
Bridges, J. et al. (2019) ‘Hospital nurse staffing and staff-patient interactions: an observational study’, BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(9), pp. 706–713. Web.
Drennan, V.M., Calestani, M., Ross, F., Saunders, M. and West, P. (2018) ‘Tackling the workforce crisis in district nursing: can the Dutch Buurtzorg model offer a solution and a better patient experience? A mixed methods case study’, BMJ Open, 8(6), p.e021931.
Chaboyer, W. et al. (2021) ‘Missed nursing care: An overview of reviews’, The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 37(2), pp. 82–91. Web.
Ewuzie, U., Aku, N. O. and Nwankpa, S. U. (2021) ‘An appraisal of data collection, analysis, and reporting adopted for water quality assessment: A case of Nigeria water quality research,’, Heliyon, 7(9), p. e07950. Web.
Griffiths, P. et al. (2018) ‘Nurse staffing levels, missed vital signs and mortality in hospitals: retrospective longitudinal observational study’, Health Services and Delivery Research, 6(38), pp. 1–120. Web.
Griffiths, P. et al. (2020) ‘Nursing workload, nurse staffing methodologies and tools: A systematic scoping review and discussion’, International journal of nursing studies, 103(103487), p. 103487. Web.
Karaca, A. and Durna, Z. (2019) ‘Patient satisfaction with the quality of nursing care’, Nursing Open, 6(2), pp. 535–545. Web.
Lotfi, M. et al. (2019) ‘Assessment of nurse-patient communication and patient satisfaction from nursing care’, Nursing Open, 6(3), pp. 1189–1196. Web.
Munn, Z. et al. (2021) ‘Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data’, International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), pp. 147–153. Web.
Panagioti, M., Geraghty, K., Johnson, J., Zhou, A., Panagopoulou, E., Chew-Graham, C., Peters, D., Hodkinson, A., Riley, R. and Esmail, A. (2018) ‘Association between physician burnout and patient safety, professionalism, and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, JAMA internal medicine, 178(10), pp.1317-1331.
Papanicolas, I. et al. (2019) ‘Performance of UK National Health Service compared with other high-income countries: observational study’, BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 367, p. l6326. Web.
Pugh, R.J., Battle, C.E., Thorpe, C., Lynch, C., Williams, J.P., Campbell, A., Subbe, C.P., Whitaker, R., Szakmany, T., Clegg, A.P. and Lone, N.I. (2019) ‘Reliability of frailty assessment in the critically ill: a multicentre prospective observational study’, Anaesthesia, 74(6), pp.758-764.
Rapport, F. et al. (2019) ‘What do patients really want? An in-depth examination of patient experience in four Australian hospitals’, BMC health services research, 19(1), p. 38. Web.
Themes, U. F. O. (2019) Description and analysis of data, and critical appraisal of the literature, Thoracic Key. Web.
Appendix A
