Nurses Hand Hygiene Behavior

Doris examined the claim that hand hygiene education and individual feedback on hand hygiene frequency and method enhances hand hygiene frequency and improves nurses’ methodology scores of hand hygiene as stated by Chun et al. (2014). The evaluation entailed using the criteria for examining statistical research to determine whether statistical evidence support the claim. Through the critical appraisal process for statistical analysis by Cohn et al. (2009), Doris demonstrated that the research by Chun et al. (2014) has statistical evidence to support the claim.

During the critical appraisal process, Doris examined whether the study met each of the various components in the criteria for substantive statistical research. As shown by Doris, even though the study did not meet power analysis and lacked suggestion on the level of data, the existing statistical evidence was adequate to support the claim. Based on the review conducted by Doris, a study can be considered to be statistically and clinically significant even when it does not meet all the components of the criteria for substantive statistical research.

This implies that the statistical significance of a quantitative research does not necessary require incorporating all components of statistical research as stipulated by Cohn et al. (2009). However, the study should contain adequate statistical evidence to demonstrate its statistical significance. Doris seemingly relied on the mean scores prior to and after implementation of the hand hygiene intervention to show the existence of statistical evidence that supports the research. The mean scores were combined with the various aspects of the statistical analysis to show how evidence support the claim.

In addition, Doris examined evidence relating to hand hygiene frequency when nurses came into contact with MRSA isolated patients. As a result, Doris did not only focus on hand.