(Chaboyer et al, 2009, p. 140). By supporting the authors findings with similar participation” studies who produced the same results strengthens the validity of their study, however, the reader would have liked to been better introduced to this primary source with a brief description of the type of study that was conducted. The authors also neglected to state the year of the study in the discussion section leaving the readers to flip to the reference section to find how recent the study was. The study by Timonen and Shivonen (2000) was published 9 years prior to et Chaboyers’ al. (2009) which is considered outside the relevant source time frame of five years. However, considering the problem statement being what it is, it further illustrates the lack of published studies and research on the topic of bedside handover. To support increased patient safety that was found as a result of implementing bedside handover the authors cite reasons surrounding the idea of staff undertake this activity “oncoming with input from (Chaboyer et. al, 2009, p. 140). The authors cited that nurses outgoing staff” were able to identify information or ambiguous statements can be easily “missing addressed…by scanning the patient, environment, and bedside (p. 140). The authors continue by stating chart” scan also appears to limit inconsistencies between the patients reported and actual condition, “the with visual sightings of the patient triggering questions and additional information (p. 140). The authors could have strengthened this result statement with statistics from quality indicators such as; medication errors, adverse outcomes, or other avoidable injuries prior to implementing bedside handover, and then the statistics of the same quality indicators following implementation as part of the six-month assessment. This would have provided the reader with concrete evidence of the statement made by the authors of increased patient safety being a result of bedside handover.
participation” (Chaboyer et al, 2009, p. 140). By supporting the authors findings with similar studies who produced the same results strengthens the validity of their study, however, the reader would have liked to been better introduced to this primary source with a brief description of the type of study that was conducted. The authors also neglected to state the year of the study in the discussion section leaving the readers to flip to the reference section to find how recent the study was. The study by Timonen and Shivonen (2000) was published 9 years prior to Chaboyers’ et al. (2009) which is considered outside the relevant source time frame of five years. However, considering the problem statement being what it is, it further illustrates the lack of published studies and research on the topic of bedside handover. To support increased patient safety that was found as a result of implementing bedside handover the authors cite reasons surrounding the idea of “oncoming staff undertake this activity with input from outgoing staff” (Chaboyer et. al, 2009, p. 140). The authors cited that nurses were able to identify “missing information or ambiguous statements can be easily addressed…by scanning the patient, environment, and bedside chart” (p. 140). The authors continue by stating “the scan also appears to limit inconsistencies between the patients reported and actual condition, with visual sightings of the patient triggering questions and additional information (p. 140). The authors could have strengthened this result statement with statistics from quality indicators such as; medication errors, adverse outcomes, or other avoidable injuries prior to implementing bedside handover, and then the statistics of the same quality indicators following implementation as part of the six-month assessment. This would have provided the reader with concrete evidence of the statement made by the authors of increased patient safety being a result of bedside handover.
final_ebpp.docx