Free «Article Analysis: "Conversion to a Computerized Clinical Intervention Documentation Process: What Are the Gains?"» Essay Paper

Explanation why the Selected Research Article is a Quantitative Study

There are several reasons why the research chosen for the purposes of this study is quantitative. First of all, it involves systematic observation, the findings of which are presented in numerical terms. The authors resort to calculations. Likewise, the information presented is structured in tables. The researchers compare the number of clinical interventions before the implementation of the computerized clinical intervention documentation process to the number of interventions in the post-implementation period. Back in 1994, Brown and Pearce explained that a quantitative study was characterized by “statistical tests of hypothesis involving a group of selected dependent and independent variables” (p. 146). Although the selected study does not fulfill this task completely, the researchers make efforts to do what Brown and Pearce (1994) envisaged. In contrast, a qualitative study of the research problem would descriptively analyze the computerized clinical intervention documentation process without adducing numerical evidence.

Introduction of the Article

The article chosen for the purposes of this assignment is “Conversion to a computerized clinical intervention documentation process: What are the gains?” It was produced collectively by a group of Pleasanton-based researchers including Sousa, Yano, Huynh, and Matsune, and published in the Formulary Journal in January 2002. The journal is not very authoritative in its field but is nonetheless peer-reviewed.

Research Problem and Purpose

The main research problem of this article is unsatisfactory clinical intervention documentation process. The overarching purpose of the study is, by contrast, to better understand the achievements and benefits of the computerized approach to clinical intervention documentation process.

Literature Review

It is essential to make a reservation at the outset of this section that the chosen article is rather small, especially for a quantitative study. It is based exclusively on primary rather than secondary data. This means that the authors collected data by observing and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the manual and computerized intervention documentation processes. Working on the paper, they did not use any relevant secondary sources of information. To be more specific, they did not use any secondary sources at all. This is exactly the reason why this literature review section cannot be completed.

Research Objectives, Questions, and Hypothesis

The researchers do not explicitly mention neither research objectives nor research questions and hypothesis in their paper. Upon a close perusal of the article, however, it is possible to surmise their research objectives. Thus, Sousa et al. (2002) sought to juxtapose the effectiveness of the computerized clinical intervention documentation process to that of the manual clinical intervention documentation process. Likewise, they specifically sought to ascertain whether the computerized clinical intervention documentation process was more cost-effective.

Study Variables

Sousa, Yano, Huynh, and Matsune (2002) used two independent variables. On the first stage of the study, during the third quarter of 1999, they used a manual clinical intervention documentation process as an independent variable. On the second stage of the study, during the third quarter of 2000, they used a computerized clinical intervention documentation process as an independent variable. These variables were independent because the researchers oversaw their implementation. On both stages of the study, the compliance of the pharmacists and/or other clinicians with the respective documentation processes was used as a dependent variable. After all, the observed subjects still could shirk their responsibilities of documenting interventions. Lastly, the cost-effectiveness of each documentation process was employed as another dependent variable.

Research Design

Conventional wisdom holds it that the research design is the blueprint for integrating various parts of a research paper into a coherent final product (Arulmozhi, 2003). In this sense, Sousa and her colleagues failed to apply a robust research design. Their paper lacks the structural components of a scientific research paper. Instead, they simply conducted the pre-implementation and post-implementation analysis of the research problem. Likewise, because they did not seek to explain the reasons for the observed differences, their research design was more descriptive in nature.

Population and Sample

Pharmacists and some clinical staff were involved in the process of testing the system. This is all information about the participants of the study that the authors provide.

Data Collection

As mentioned earlier in the text, the authors have relied on primary data collection instruments as the basis for their findings. They observed the compliance of pharmacists and/or other clinicians with daily manual documentation during the third quarter of 1999 and with daily computerized documentation during the third quarter of 2000. Interestingly, the observations were conducted manually in both cases. On the other hand, the review of the previous research conducted by other authors is never provided in the article.

Limitations

Firstly, Sousa et al.’s (2002) article is not a full-fledged study as the information in it is improperly structured. Likewise, there is no literature review in the paper. Avoiding secondary sources makes the investigation biased. It also lacks rigorous research design. The authors do not stress their research problems and purposes clearly. Hence, there are ample grounds to say that this paper looks more like an abstract or a synopsis of a comprehensive journal article.

Conclusions

Despite all its shortcomings, the article is relatively good in its basic function. It fulfills two overarching research objectives. In particular, the authors highlighted the limitations of the manual clinical documentation in contrast to the computerized clinical intervention documentation process. They also found that the computerized documentation process is significantly more cost-effective.