This paper provides a critical review and analysis of a study by Meade, Bursell, and Ketelsen (2006) investigating the effectiveness of varying nursing round intervals on patient satisfaction, call light use, and patient safety. Using a nationwide quasi-experimental nonequivalent groups design across 14 hospitals and 27 nursing units over six weeks, the study compared 1-hour and 2-hour rounding schedules against control units. The paper examines the study's research objectives, hypotheses, sample adequacy, measurement directness and error, reliability and validity, and statistical methods, identifying both the strengths and limitations of the research design and its findings.
The paper demonstrates structured empirical critique: rather than summarizing the study generically, it evaluates each methodological component (design, sampling, measurement, reliability, statistical approach) against standard research quality criteria. This approach is characteristic of graduate-level nursing and health services research coursework.
The paper opens with a brief contextual introduction establishing why patient satisfaction matters, then moves through numbered analytical sections covering the research problem, objectives, variables, literature review, study framework, design, sample, measurement approaches, error acknowledgment, level of measurement, reliability and validity procedures, and statistical testing. Each section is concise but targeted, collectively building a comprehensive methodological critique of the Meade et al. (2006) study.
Studies have shown time and again that patient satisfaction is associated with perceptions of quality of care. In addition, national accrediting agencies such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations have cited patient satisfaction as a high priority for healthcare providers. Because resources are by definition scarce, it is important for healthcare providers to determine the most cost-effective approach to improving patient satisfaction, particularly during periods of budget cutbacks and economic downturns.
A study by Meade, Bursell, and Ketelsen (2006) analyzed the effectiveness of varying nursing round intervals — specifically 1-hour and 2-hour rounds — in improving patient satisfaction and reducing the incidence of patient falls. This paper provides a review and analysis of the Meade et al. study to identify its strengths and weaknesses.
According to Meade and her associates, there is a paucity of timely research concerning the use of call lights by inpatients as it applies to improving patient-care management, patient safety, and patient satisfaction. When ill, groggy, or semi-conscious patients are left to their own devices, they may attempt to leave their hospital beds to visit the bathroom, ask a question, or simply stretch their legs — not recognizing the dangers inherent in premature ambulation — and may experience an injurious fall as a result.
Moreover, based on empirical observations, patients frequently use their call lights for reasons that could be resolved by a certified nursing assistant rather than a licensed practical nurse (LPN) or registered nurse (RN). Given the current and projected shortage of nurses in the United States, any time spent on non-essential patient care issues represents an added burden for LPNs and RNs, and may further exacerbate job dissatisfaction and burnout, potentially causing healthcare professionals to leave the profession entirely.
In order to fill the existing gap in the literature, the research objectives of the study by Meade et al. were two-fold. The first objective was (a) to examine how often patients used their call lights and for what purposes, as well as the impact of varying nursing rounds from 1 to 2 hours on patient satisfaction and patient safety — defined as the incidence of patient falls. The second objective was (b) to determine how much time LPNs and RNs spend responding to patient call lights and how this response time affected patient-care management.
Based on these considerations, the researchers hypothesized that nursing rounds on medical, surgical, and medical-surgical hospital units — performed on a regular schedule by nursing staff carrying out a specific set of actions — would accomplish the following: (a) reduce call light use; (b) increase patient satisfaction; and (c) improve patient safety, as measured by the frequency of patient falls.
The variables used in the study consisted of varying the nursing round times from 1 to 2 hours. The researchers present a brief but fairly comprehensive review of the literature in support of their hypothesis. As noted, there is a lack of timely studies concerning the use of call lights by patients, but the researchers cite several studies that support their position, at least in a general fashion.
The framework for the study was a nationwide quasi-experimental nonequivalent groups design conducted over a 6-week period. The researchers describe the design as "quasi-experimental" because of its unique nature. Baseline data for the study was recorded during the first 2 weeks of the 6-week study period.
The study design consisted of analyses of data collected from the experimental units (1-hour rounds and 2-hour rounds) versus the control nursing units, with nonrandom assignment of hospital units to their respective groups. The assignment was the responsibility of chief nursing officers and nurse managers. Although the decision to conduct 1-hour or 2-hour nursing rounds was left to the nursing executives at the participating hospitals, the principal investigator ensured that the sample was stratified by type of unit (i.e., medical, surgical, or combined medical-surgical), unit size, and frequency of nursing rounds.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.