Nursing
Updates needed to current completed assignment.
1. While Briton et al., 2017 is a qualitative research study, Zimmerman et al., 2016 study is a systematic review. You may use the systematic review for week 3. You need a qualitative research study to replace the Zimmerman study for week 1. Please resubmit your initial post that includes a replacement qualitative research study along with an accurate/updated Johns Hopkins Evidence Summary Tool for my review
2. Update week 1 initial post to reflect the new qualitative research study.
Practice Question:Up to 30 days readmission from a skilled US nursing facility
Date:xxxxxxxxxx
Article Number
Author and Date
Evidence Type
Sample, Sample Size, Setting
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Observable Measures
Limitations
Evidence Level, Quality
1
Zimmerman, S., Bowers, B. J., Cohen, L. W., Grabowski, D. C., Horn, S. D., Kemper, P., & THRIVE Research Collaborative (2016).
Descriptive mixed method study.
This approach is used in the collection of qualitative date from a specific populace.
This is a significant consolidation and interpretation of the results based on the primary data (2011-2014) of 28 green homes of 16 organizations and 15 comparative nursing homes of 8 organizations. Secondary data were collected for 72 GH homes (from 15 organizations) and 223 comparative homes from 2005 to 2010. GH Home Interview and Observation and Comparison, Minimal Dataset Assessment (MDS), Medicare Data, Online Survey, Certification, Report Data.
The results showed that admission to Green House nursing homes reduced all readmissions for 30 days by approximately 31% and preventable hospitalizations by 30%.
The study aimed at evaluating the impact of green-house hospital on patient outcome.
The green house medication is believed to be made up of skilled personells.
Qualitative method
In this study, the inconsistent compliance of the GH model with the standards made it difficult to compare different conditions.
Consistency is a scientific principle which should be observed by all researchers. Inconsistency would easily culminate to wrong results leading to wrong inferences.
Inconsistency affects replication of outcomes which are both scientific pronciples.
LEVEL III-C
The study was carried out in some controlled experiment whereby the outcome is evidence based.
2
Britton, M. C., Ouellet, G. M., Minges, K. E., Gawel, M., Hodshon, B., &Chaudhry, S. I. (2017).
Comparison study.
25 Hospital and 16 SNF providers (N = 16) participated in qualitative interviews assessing patient transfers and experiences with unplanned hospital readmissions. Data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary coding team using the constant comparison method.
As a result, all types of disabilities observed during patient care, including poor communication, were found to affect all Medicare patients who were hospitalized for serious illness and then transferred from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility. It was. However, if certain measures and strategies are considered, such as improved communication between clinicians, ensuring the understanding of emergency care providers, and creating strategic opportunities for harmonization of healthcare facilities, improving the transition to healthcare Can be improved.
Qualitative method using semi-structured interviews The instruments used collect data also provide qualitative information,
The data collected through interviews is compared to infer the impact of skilled labor on patient outcome.
The results of this study cannot be generalized to all hospitals or all SNLs because this study is limited to one geographic area. It is also limited to the provider’s perspective and does not include information from patients or unpaid caregivers.
Every study should ensure that the results obtained should be similar in other samples. Typically, replicability is a scientific principle of research. The variance in the outcome should also be scientifically proven.
The geographical location of an area is critical in determining the socio-economic status which in the long run affect the health systems.
LEVEL III-B
The evidence is also concrete as far as provision of evidence based practice is concerned.
Britton, M. C., Ouellet, G. M., Minges, K. E., Gawel, M., Hodshon, B., & Chaudhry, S. I. (2017). Care transitions between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities: perspectives of sending and receiving providers.The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety,43(11), 565-572.
Zimmerman, S., Bowers, B. J., Cohen, L. W., Grabowski, D. C., Horn, S. D., Kemper, P., … & Reed, D. (2016). New evidence on the green house model of nursing home care: synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice, and research.New evidence on the green house model of nursing home care: synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice, and research.,51, 475-496.
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix G: Individual Evidence SummaryTool
The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University
5
Directions for Use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool
Purpose
This form issued to document the results of evidence appraisal in preparation for evidence synthesis. The form provides the EBP team with documentation of the sources of evidence used, they earthe evidence was published or otherwise communicated, the information gathered from each evidence source that helps the team answer the EBP question, and the level and quality of each source of evidence.
Article Number
Assign a number to each reviewed source of evidence. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.
Author and Date
Indicate the last name of the first author or the evidence source and the publication/communication date. List both author/evidence source and date.
Evidence Type
Indicate the type of evidence reviewed(for example: RCT,meta-analysis, mixed methods, quaLitative, systematic review, case study, narrative literature review).
Sample, Sample Size, and Setting
Provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location.
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Although the reviewer may find many points of interest ,list only findings that directly apply to the EBP question.
Observable Measures
QuaNtitative measures or variables are used to answer a research question, test a hypothesis, describe characteristics, or determine the effect, impact, or influence. QuaLitative evidence uses cases, context, opinions, experiences, and thoughts to represent the phenomenon of study.
Limitations
Include information that may or may not be within the text of the article regarding drawbacks of the piece of evidence. The evidence may list limitations, or it may be evident to you, as you review the evidence, that an important point is missed or the sample does not apply to the population of interest.
Evidence Level and Quality
Using information from the individual appraisal tools, transfer the evidence level and quality rating into this column.
Analysis of Evidence Summary
Through the evidence summary of both articles, I find the authors to answer the research questions. This was enabled by the research design method utilized. For instance, mixed descriptive method has enhanced the research through observation interviews, and comparison. Additionally, the comparison design entailed interviews for study effectiveness.
Sample Participants
The participants in both studies form an effective representation of the population.
Comparisons in Study Limitations
The first article limitations involve inconsistent compliance of the GH model with the standards made it difficult to compare different conditions. On the other hand, the second article is limited to a specific geographical area and providers perspective. This limits the similarities drawn from the study. Further, different evidence opinions are projected from the sample populations.
Research Study Consideration
I would consider both the research studies to support my practice problem. This is because evidence and support of information in the research has been done conclusively. In addition, the research studies clearly explain and analyze the study variables to form concrete evidence. Research design
The research design forms a comprehensive plan that is essential in data collection in projects and especially the empirical ones. The application of the descriptive mixed method in the article Zimmerman et al. (2016) answers the research question as it indicates that admission to GreenHouse nursing home reduced by about 31% while preventable hospitalization reduced by about 30%. In the article by Britton et al. (2017), the research design indicates that all disabilities observed affected Medicare patients. On the other hand, research design acts as the blueprint for different empirical projects with the primary purpose been to answer the research questions. Likewise, the research design is employed to test the hypothesis through data collection, instrument development, and sampling process. The research design is divided into positivist and interpretive, where the positivist involves survey research and laboratory experiments while interpretive techniques involve ethnography and action research. Through the research design, a researcher is in a position to determine whether the observed changes in the explanatory variables are caused by alterations in the variable that is hypothesized.
Sample participants representation
The question of the appropriateness of a sample size remains in the heads of many scholars in the field of the qualitative study. The sample size of Zimmerman et al. (2016), is representative and can be used for generalization since it involved 28 Green homes in collaboration with eight organization. Britton et al. (2017) are representative as it involves 25 hospitals and 16 SNF providers contributing to Medicare facility. Therefore, the sample size of given qualitative research can even be as small as one (single case study). Similarly, the sample size of qualitative research can be a grounded theory study so long as it answers the research problem. The participants in both studies form a significant representation of the population as the researchers select them through convenience that takes the participants with ready data. However, the researcher should always explain the roadmap used to arrive at a given decision to one either of the method.
Comparison of Limitation
The first limitation that is evident in Zimmerman et al. (2016) article inconsistent in compliance of the Greenhome model that makes it hard to compare the results. The inconsistencies made it difficult to compare different conditions expressed by the author. On the other hand, Britton et al. (2017) have a limitation generalization to other areas in nursing. The limitation is facilitated by the fact that it is limited to a specific geographical area and the provider’s perspective. Similarly, it is hard to analyze the data as the research contain numerous standardized categories. The last limitation that is evident in the two articles is the inadequacy of data collection procedure as they target the same population.
Analysis of the Evidence Summary
I would consider both the research studies to support my practice problem. The evidence and support of information in the research has been done conclusively. Besides, the research studies clearly explain and analyze the study variables to form concrete evidence. Lastly, the sample in both articles forms a useful representation of the nursing issue.
References
Britton, M. C., Ouellet, G. M., Minges, K. E., Gawel, M., Hodshon, B., & Chaudhry, S. I. (2017). Care transitions between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities: perspectives of sending and receiving providers.The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety,43(11), 565-572.
Zimmerman, S., Bowers, B. J., Cohen, L. W., Grabowski, D. C., Horn, S. D., Kemper, P., … & Reed, D. (2016). New evidence on the green house model of nursing home care: synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice, and research.New evidence on the green house model of nursing home care: synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice, and research.,51, 475-496 Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
The answers are Bolded
Evidence level and quality rating:
Article title: Care transitions between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities: perspectives of sending and receiving providers.
Number: 2
Author(s): Britton, M. C., Ouellet, G. M., Minges, K. E., Gawel, M., Hodshon, B., & Chaudhry, S. I.
Publication date: 2017
Journal:
The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety,
Setting: Hospital
Sample (composition and size): 25 Hospital and 16 SNF providers (N = 16)
Does this evidence address my EBP question?
Yes
No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence:
YES
Is this study:
QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data)
Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition, measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data. Common methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and reviews of records or documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis.
Go to
Section I: QuaNtitative
QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data)
Rich narrative documents are used for uncovering themes; describes a problem or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it. Common methods are focus groups, individual interviews (unstructured or semi structured), and participation/observations. Sample sizes are small and are determined when data saturation is achieved. Data saturation is reached when the researcher identifies that no new themes emerge and redundancy is occurring. Synthesis is used in data analysis. Often a starting point for studies when little research exists; may use results to design empirical studies. The researcher describes, analyzes, and interprets reports, descriptions, and observations from participants.
The study is qualitative
Go to
Section II: QuaLitative
Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively)
Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using both approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than using either approach alone. Sample sizes vary based on methods used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing both quaNtitative and quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is continual and can influence stages in the research process.
Go to
Section III: Mixed Methods
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
2017 The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Section I: QuaNtitative
Level of Evidence (Study Design)
A Is this a report of a single research study?
Yes
No
Go to B
1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable?
Yes
No
2. Was there a control group?
Yes
No
3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups?
Yes
No
If Yes to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or experimental study.
LEVEL I
If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to question 3 or Yes to question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3, this is quasi-experimental.
(Some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, and may have a control group).
LEVEL II
If No to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is nonexperimental.
(No manipulation of independent variable; can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational; often uses secondary data).
LEVEL III
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: As a result, all types of disabilities observed during patient care, including poor communication, were found to affect all Medicare patients who were hospitalized for serious illness and then transferred from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility. It was. However, if certain measures and strategies are considered, such as improved communication between clinicians, ensuring the understanding of emergency care providers, and creating strategic opportunities for harmonization of healthcare facilities, improving the transition to healthcare Can be improved.
Skip to the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Section I: QuaNtitative (continued)
B Is this a summary of multiple sources of research evidence?
Yes
Continue
No
Use Appendix F
1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method?
If this study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an integrative review (see Appendix F).
Yes
Continue
No
Use Appendix F
2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (see descriptions below):
a. Are all studies included RCTs?
LEVEL I
b. Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental only?
LEVEL II
c. Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental, or non- experimental only?
LEVEL III
A systematic review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but does not generate an effect size.
A meta-analysis, or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size.
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question: All types of disabilities observed during patient care, including poor communication, were found to affect all Medicare patients who were hospitalized for serious illness and then transferred from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility. It was. However, if certain measures and strategies are considered, such as improved communication between clinicians, ensuring the understanding of emergency care providers, and creating strategic opportunities for harmonization of healthcare facilities, improving the transition to healthcare Can be improved.
Skip to the Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies
Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in
knowledge?
Yes
No
Was the purpose of the study clearly presented?
Yes
No
Was the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a seminal study)?
Yes
No
Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?
Yes
No
If there is a control group:
Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?
Yes
No
N/A
If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?
Yes
No
N/A
Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)?
Yes
No
N/A
Are data collection methods described clearly?
Yes
No
Were the instruments reliable (Cronbachs [alpha] > 0.70)?
Yes
No
N/A
Was instrument validity discussed?
Yes
No
N/A
If surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response rate > 25%?
Yes
No
N/A
Were the results presented clearly?
Yes
No
If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?
Yes
No
N/A
Were study limitations identified and addressed?
Yes
No
Were conclusions based on results?
Yes
No
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis)
Were the variables of interest clearly identified?
Yes
No
Was the search comprehensive and reproducible?
Key search terms stated
Yes
No
Multiple databases searched and identified
Yes
No
Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated
Yes
No
Was there a flow diagram that included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?
Yes
No
Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and limitations)?
Yes
No
Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?
Yes
No
Were conclusions based on results?
Yes
No
Results were interpreted
Yes
No
Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question
Yes
No
Did the systematic review include a section addressing limitations and
how they were addressed?
Yes
No
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section (below)
Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies
Circle the appropriate quality rating below:
A High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence.
B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence.
C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn.
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Section II: QuaLitative
Level of Evidence (Study Design)
A Is this a report of a single research study?
Yes this is Level III
No
go to II B
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the Appraisal of Single QuaLitative Research Study section (below)
Appraisal of a Single QuaLitative Research Study
Was there a clearly identifiable and articulated:
Purpose?
Yes
No
Research question?
Yes
No
Justification for method(s) used?
Yes
No
Phenomenon that is the focus of the research?
Yes
No
Were study sample participants representative?
Yes
No
Did they have knowledge of or experience with the research area?
Yes
No
Were participant characteristics described?
Yes
No
Was sampling adequate, as evidenced by achieving saturation of data?
Yes
No
Data analysis:
Was a verification process used in every step by checking and confirming with participants the trustworthiness of analysis and interpretation?
Yes
No
Was there a description of how data were analyzed (i.e., method), by computer or manually?
Yes
No
Do findings support the narrative data (quotes)?
Yes
No
Do findings flow from research question to data collected to analysis undertaken?
Yes
No
Are conclusions clearly explained?
Yes
No
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Skip to the Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies section
B For summaries of multiple quaLitative research studies (meta-synthesis), was a comprehensive search strategy and
rigorous appraisal method used?
Yes
Level III
No
go to Appendix F
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies section (below)
Appraisal of Meta-Synthesis Studies
Were the search strategy and criteria for selecting primary studies clearly defined?
Yes
No
Were findings appropriate and convincing?
Yes
No
Was a description of methods used to:
Compare findings from each study?
Yes
No
Interpret data?
Yes
No
Did synthesis reflect:
Yes
No
New insights?
Yes
No
Discovery of essential features of phenomena?
Yes
No
A fuller understanding of the phenomena?
Yes
No
Was sufficient data presented to support the interpretations?
Yes
No
Complete the Quality Rating for QuaLititative Studies section (below)
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Quality Rating for QuaLitative Studies
Circle the appropriate quality rating below:
No commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known about the researchers efforts to meet the appraisal criteria.
For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies1.
A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses2.
The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry.
Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report:
Transparency: Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated.
Diligence: Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find multiple sources to corroborate evidence.
Verification: The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence.
Self-reflection and self-scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a researchers experiences, background, or prejudices might shape and bias analysis and interpretations.
Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of questions; analysis and interpretation give voice to those who participated.
Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature.
C Lower-quality studies contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of the features listed for High/Good quality.
1 https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/6_4_ASSESSMENT_OF_QUALITATIVE_RESEARCH.htm 2 Adapted from Polit & Beck (2017).
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Section III: Mixed Methods
Level of Evidence (Study Design)
You will need to appraise both the quaNtitative and quaLitative parts of the study independently, before appraising the study in its entirety.
1. Evaluate the quaNitative part of the study using Section I.
Level
Quality
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:
2. Evaluate the quaLitative part of the study using Section II.
Level
Quality
Insert here the level of evidence and overall quality for this part:
Qualitative data was obtained through different approaches which made it easy for evaluation and analysis through qualitative approaches.
3. To determine the level of evidence, circle the appropriate study design:
Explanatory sequential designs collect quaNtitative data first, followed by the quaLitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaNtitative results using quaLitative findings. The level is determined based on the level of the quaNtitative part.
Exploratory sequential designs collect quaLitative data first, followed by the quaNtitative data; and their purpose is to explain quaLitative findings using the quaNtitative results. The level is determined based on the level of the quaLitative part, and it is always Level III.
Convergent parallel designs collect the quaLitative and quaNtitative data concurrently for the purpose of providing a more complete understanding of a phenomenon by merging both datasets. These designs are Level III.
Multiphasic designs collect quaLitative and quaNtitative data over more than one phase, with each phase informing the next phase. These designs are Level III.
Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
As a result, all types of disabilities observed during patient care, including poor communication, were found to affect all Medicare patients who were hospitalized for serious illness and then transferred from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility. It was. However, if certain measures and strategies are considered, such as improved communication between clinicians, ensuring the understanding of emergency care providers, and creating strategic opportunities for harmonization of healthcare facilities, improving the transition to healthcare Can be improved.
Complete the Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies section (below)
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies3
Was the mixed-methods research design relevant to address the quaNtitative and quaLitative research questions (or objectives)?
Yes
No
N/A
Was the research design relevant to address the quaNtitative and quaLitative aspects of the mixed-methods question (or objective)?
Yes
No
N/A
For convergent parallel designs, was the integration of quaNtitative and
quaLitative data (or results) relevant to address the research question or objective?
Yes
No
N/A
For convergent parallel designs, were the limitations associated with the integration (for example, the divergence of quaLitative and quaNtitative data or results) sufficiently addressed?
Yes
No
N/A
Complete the Quality Rating for Mixed-Method Studies section (below)
3 National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (2015). Appraising Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Studie s included in Mixed Studies Reviews: The MMAT. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. (Updated 20 July, 2015) Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/ resources/search/232
Quality Rating for Mixed-Methods Studies
Circle the appropriate quality rating below
A High quality: Contains high-quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; highly relevant study design; relevant integration of data or results; and careful consideration of the limitations of the chosen approach.
B Good quality: Contains good-quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; relevant study design; moderately relevant integration of data or results; and some discussion of limitations of integration.
C Low quality or major flaws: Contains low quality quaNtitative and quaLitative study components; study design not relevant to research questions or objectives; poorly integrated data or results; and no consideration of limits of integration.
2017 The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E
Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Responses are in Bold The results showed that admission to Green House nursing homes reduced all readmissions for 30 days by approximately 31% and preventable hospitalizations by 30%.
Evidence level and quality rating:
Article title: New evidence on the green house model of nursing home care: synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice, and research.
Number: 1
Author(s): Zimmerman, S., Bowers, B. J., Cohen, L. W., Grabowski, D. C., Horn, S. D., Kemper, P., & THRIVE Research Collaborative.
Publication date: 2016
Journal: N/A
Setting: green homes of 16 organizations and 15 comparative nursing homes of 8 organizations.
Sample (composition and size): 72 GH homes (from 15 organizations) and 223 comparative homes from 2005 to 2010.
Does this evidence address my EBP question?
Yes
No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence Yes
Is this study:
QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data)
Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition, measu
