This could have been a significant factor, but researchers will never know because the information was never looked at, nor contained in the study. An additional weakness of the study was that the researchers had to rely entirely on information and data derived from hospital reports and patient charts rather than on direct contact with the individuals involved. This could be a considerable weakness to the study, but again it is not known whether it is a weakness or not because the information is not contained therein, which makes it a weakness.
One rationale that an observer might make in regards to the criticism of this particular study and the fact that it only looked at the records of the patients rather than talking to the patients themselves was that the study was only looking for the incidences of pressure ulcers.
The study did not offer specific solutions to the problem itself. The study was attempting to verify that extrinsic factors were involved in a high percentage of pressure ulcers, not attempting to solve such incidences if they truly did exist. That is a considerable weakness according to some researchers who might use the rationale that if such a comprehensive study was to be accomplished, why not come to some specific recommendations to solve the problem if the problem was found to be justified?
A modification of the study then could be proposed and would include not only coming to some conclusions concerning the number of incidences, but also to offer up some specific recommendations to solve the problem. Additionally, the study could be modified to discover the incidences of pressure ulcer occurrence that occurred and healed during the subject's stay(s) in the hospital.
Another modification of the study could be to speak with some of the subjects involved while they were still in the hospital in order to discover any discrepancies by the observers as compared to the written reports that the study used exclusively...
The study took ten years to complete and required many man-hours. Coupled with the length of time and man-hours is the cost of duplicating such an event. One consideration to duplicating this study might be to gather the records from the hospitals covering a different ten-year period to discern whether the information differs in any significant amount from what was discovered by this study.
A suggestion for future researchers interested in duplicating this study might be to consider providing solutions to the findings as well as interacting with a percentage of the subjects on a more personal basis.
The usefulness of this study is undetermined but could offer some insightful thoughts and actions based on the results. The study shows that there are incidences of pressure ulcers during hospital stays and that such incidences could probably be prevented by taking a variety of simple actions. The study is therefore useful in the fact that it was a more comprehensive verification of other studies and that with the knowledge provided by this study other studies could therefore concentrate on discovering the solutions to the problem as presented by this study.
Future studies can incorporate the information derived from this study and will be able to more adequately address the problem this study was conclusive in establishing. The study will be of benefit not only for establishing the problem but for assisting other studies in more conclusive results.
Overall, the information contained therein was useful if not exactly conclusive. The study accomplished what it set out to do which was verify a problem. That the study could have done more is evident, but the researchers set the parameters and it was their study to do so with. For its scope, the study was done very well and presented in a factual and understanding method.
