effectiveness of checklist-based protocols on health outcomes
The peer is successful in making the readers understand the thesis of the article, which is assessing the effectiveness of the obstetric hemorrhage morbidity through a checklist-based protocol. He or she appreciates the authors of the selected material, vividly stating the objective of such a masterpiece. The selection of the article is appropriate because it relies on a qualitative study to ascertain the effectiveness of checklist-based protocols on health outcomes.
The article also makes a significant reference to evidence-based practice in nursing. While the evidence-based approach incorporates well-designed preferences and studies, a quality improvement study aims to improve clinical practice by analyzing data related to health outcomes and processes. In this regard, both approaches seek to provide cost-effective and quality care to patients. I agree with the assertion that a quality study improves the compliance and accuracy of nursing practices. The peer also makes a sound conclusion that checklist-based protocol has been effective in improving the health outcomes for patients with postpartum hemorrhage, especially the mothers.
However, the peer does not state that postpartum hemorrhage is the primary cause of mortality and maternal morbidity worldwide. Such assertions would emphasize the rationale for a standardized approach, such as checklist-based protocol, to manage the phenomenon. Moreover, the peer fails to highlight the role of a multidisciplinary team in the implementation of cost-effective training and education strategies towards the management of obstetric hemorrhage.
#2
The peer identifies the article, stating the topic and the authors accordingly. Besides, the paper provides the purpose of the study, which is to determine and evaluate pain intensity in older populations. In this regard, I agree with the peer that the study aims to underpin diagnostic decision-making. However, the review does not recognize how cognitive impairment compromises pain assessment in the nursing home population. Besides, this review does not mention that the article provides an interdisciplinary, evidence-based clinical practice in nursing because it offers a guideline for pain assessment, especially in-home setting.
The peer provides vivid justification for considering the article as an evidence-based practice masterpiece. The review highlights patient characteristics, preferences, and situations of the older populations. However, the peer does not highlight elements of pain, such as pain intensity, general mobility, changed behaviors, pain history, medication, and morbidities. Furthermore, the peer does not emphasize the re-assessment of pain using the same instruments at regular intervals.
It is essential to take into consideration the values and beliefs of the patient when interpreting pain assessments in line with EBP best practices. Although the selected article did not create any new research, it provides consensus-based recommendations from various representatives such as scientists, professional organizations, and patient representatives. As such, I agree with the peer that the article provides relevant information through experts’ suggestions. Overall, the report is a mix of quality improvement and evidence-based practices because of limited research on many aspects of pain assessment in older persons.