Ultrasound Technology and Intravenous Access Quality

The main research question is whether the use of ultrasound technology can influence the standard of (IV) access for patients of the particular hospital. The goal of this study is to determine the relationship with multiple attempts at IV as well as vascular ultrasound technology. In order to conduct the research it is appropriate to employ the method of qualitative research. In the words of Munhall (2012), “qualitative research seeks new possibilities, frees us from the bonds of biases, and searches for the significance of being” (p. 29). This kind of study helps to discover the perceptions and attitudes of people who can, in way, remove the possibility of bias-based results. In addition, the qualitative research examines trends and identifies particulars of the current scenario which provides essential information about the issue.

The method of prospective observational study is selected because of its characteristic of being a comparative study. One of the main advantages of this approach is the fact that it is focused on outcomes , not the root factors that cause the issue. It’s a great option in situations where there is a need to look into real-life scenarios and analyze their significance (Blaivas & Adhikari, 2014). The findings of observational studies provide explanations and help to develop an knowledge of the topic. It is helpful to utilize the type of research mentioned in situations where the method of interviewing or conducting a survey is not appropriate. However, there are disadvantages, such as the time and effort required to conduct the research, as well as excessive subjectivity. For instance, some studies can run for years or be profoundly dependent on the job of an academic. When conducting research, it is important to avoid any influence on the research to ensure that the quality of the results. Furthermore, ethical considerations are another issue. An observational study can prove difficult in circumstances where the participants are in a state of confusion, hostile and so on. The need to present the results of the study could create some confusion.

With regard to the objective of this study and the purpose of this study, it is possible to conclude that the mixed method approach could enhance the effectiveness and visibility of the results. It could be beneficial to gather the qualitative data and support it by a survey, employing an Likert scale of 10 points to measure IV durations along with other indicators. Creswell (2014) suggests that it is more beneficial to utilize “the two forms of data that should be integrated into the design through merging the data, connecting the data, or embedding the data” (p. 217). The main benefit for this kind study is the fact that the qualitative data is backed up by quantitative indicators, or the reverse is true. This strength is enhanced by the elimination any weaknesses in both methodologies (Reaves, Ginsburg, Bang and Fleming in 2015). Particularly the mixed method creates an equilibrium between objectivity as well as subjectivity, resulting in an extensive view and interpretation of the scenario. For instance, the study of Osborn, Borhart, and Antonis (2012) blends quantitative and qualitative methods which includes surveys and a controlled trials.

It is also necessary to realize this mixed-method method is associated with certain challenges. It is often too complex to implement due to the many demands. Particularly, it consumes lots of time and resources. In the event of discrepancies and there are a few reasons for it, it can be difficult to define and deal with themby using the two methods. So, research using mixed methods needs careful planning and the collection of sources and paying attention to the smallest of details.

Leave a Comment