The Pros And Cons Of Quantitative And Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is flexible written form their results are ongoing and their conclusion can be changed while quantitative research is numerical, reliable, specific, data are collected by statistical analysis due to which quantitative are more accurate. Qualitative research uses open questions to find the depth of the information while quantitative research uses closed question, secondary data or experiments due to this it lacks the depth of the information and neglect the effect of the individuals which could be service provider, service users or other staff members.

This paper primarily concerns qualitative research, but we were asked to compare both qualitative and quantitative methods. During comparison, there are many noted differences in both study designs, but not many similarities. Qualitative research uses a subjective approach with a large sample population. It collects non-statistical data, using an unstructured or semi-structured technique (Nieswiadomy & Bailey, 2018). Quantitative research uses an objective approach and large, random, sampling to ask opinions in a structured way. The findings of quantitative studies are conclusive and used to recommend a final course of action (Nieswiadomy & Bailey, 2018). While it is hard to see similarities between the two, both methods aim to find a solution to a problem or question, the researcher doing the study may affect the outcome and an analysis of the collected data must be done (Souza, 2017). What many don’t realize is the connection amongst the two. You can say, both types of research build upon one another, meaning quantitative studies can quantify results found in qualitative research (Souza, 2017).

National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs), established in 2002 by the Joint Commission, is to help accredited organizations address specific areas of concern in regard to patient safety ("Catheter-Associated," 2015). NPSG.07.06.01 Implement evidence-based practices to prevent indwelling catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) is a 2015 NPSG ("The Joint Commission," 2015). Our facility has 1.32 CAUTIs per 1000 device days (Carson, 2015). Decreasing CAUTIs can be achieved with a strict goal, addressing the financial implications, interdisciplinary collaboration, nursing leadership, a measurement tool, and discussing the future healthcare delivery methods.

For quite a while there has been some discussion around which method of distinctions between Qualitative research and quantitative research. This has been fired in later years with some thinking that a combination of the two is best practice especially in social

National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) were established in 2002 by the Joint Commission to help accredited organizations address specific areas of concern in regard to patient safety ("Catheter-Associated," 2015). NPSG.07.06.01 Implement evidence-based practices to prevent indwelling catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) is a 2015 NPSG ("The Joint Commission," 2015). Our facility has 1.32 CAUTIs per 1000 device days (Carson, 2015). Decreasing our CAUTIs can be achieved with a strict goal, addressing the financial implications, interdisciplinary collaboration, nursing leadership, a measurement tool, and discussing the future healthcare delivery methods.

This paper will discuss the National Patient Safety Goal NPSG 0.7.06.01 entitled “ Use proven guidelines to prevent infection of the urinary tract that are caused by catheter” (The Joint Commission, 2015). It will identify reasons why this National Patient Safety Goal was chosen as well as the type of organizations that utilize urinary catheters. It will look into the cost of implementing an educational process compared with the hospital cost of Catheter-Associated Urinary Infections (CAUTI). The Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) will demonstrate a method on how to gather data, design educational tool, implement standard practice and create a committee by collaborating with other health care disciplines. The effectiveness of the educational process will be evaluated through data collection and analysis. Finally, future health care delivery implications will be explored.

A Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) prevention team was developed at a hospital in response to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ policy and to improve patient safety. This policy significantly

A qualitative study addresses the complexity of human experience, focusing on the big picture (Rebar & Gersch, 2015); while a quantitative study breaks a problem down into small pieces and focuses on specific parts to see how they all relate (Rebar & Gersch, 2015). Qualitative methods focus on subjective information, and never try to predict or control the phenomenon of interest (Rebar & Gersch, 2015); on the other hand, quantitative methods focus on statistics and objective information, and can yield predictions and control (Rebar & Gersch, 2015).

One of the issues that has been addressed since the initial release of the report is the need to eliminate the occurrence of hospital-acquired infections (HIAs). As noted by Knudson (2014), current efforts to improve healthcare practices encompass new regulations and prevention efforts to eliminate, or at least reduce, HAS, including catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). The following paper discusses current efforts in CAUTI prevention, contemporary regulations and mandates, and a quality improvement plan that can be initiated at the focus clinical site.

Carter, E. J., Pallin, D. J., Mandel, L., Sinnette, C., & Schuur, J. D. (2016). Emergency Department Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention: Multisite Qualitative Study of Perceived Risks and Implemented Strategies. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 37(2), 156. doi:10.1017/ice.2015.267

Carter, Pallin, Mandel, Sinnette and Schurr (2016) conducted a qualitative study to investigate the catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) reduction practices in the emergency department (ED). These researchers clearly identified that little is understood about ED workflow and ED-specific CAUTI prevention strategies. In an effort to better understand the flow, they enrolled EDs with CAUTI prevention strategies, so they can observe the motivations, risk factors and strategies to address those risks. This topic is very relevant to nursing, as today’s healthcare is in the midst of a paradigm shift and care has redirected its attention from quantity towards quality. Healthcare facilities, driven by better reimbursement from

The Quality Improvement nursing process that I have chosen to research is patient safety. I have chosen to focus specifically on the topic of catheter associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI’s) during hospitalization and their preventions. It is estimated that 15-25% of hospitalized patients receive a urinary catheter throughout their stay, whether or not they need it. A large 80% of all patients diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) can be attributed to a catheter (Bernard, Hunter, and Moore, 2012). The bacteria may gain entry into the bladder during insertion of the catheter, during manipulation of the catheter or drainage system, around the catheter, and after removal.

General speaking, quantitative research is thought to be objective, however qualitative research often involves a subjective element. There are differences designs in qualitative research in comparison to quantitative research. Qualitative research involves words, pictures, or objects; Quantitative involves data in the form of numbers and statistics.

There are also some differences between these study designs, which may cause some problems for the inexperienced researcher. “Quantitative research is objective; qualitative research is subjective. Quantitative research seeks explanatory laws; qualitative research aims at

(i) Quantitative vs Qualitative Research: Qualitative research methods is based on values and not numbers while quantitative is based on numeric and Quantifiable data to generalize in its conclusion.