Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections Research

Quantitative vs. Qualitative study of Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections
Your Name
October 16, 2016
Your Institution of Affiliation
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Designs
In any field of knowledge, the debate between the use of either quantitative or qualitative research design has been an age-old issue. On one hand, the debate argues that in doing research, a more objective, deductive, and concise way of analysis should be employed (Ebling Library, 2016). More specifically, this side argues that this objectivity can only be reached through the use of ‘numerical’ data in doing research. On the other hand, the focus is given to the more subjective, inductive, and broad means of data analysis (Ebling Library, 2016). Preference between these two can differ based on the field of knowledge. For the Social Sciences, Liberal Arts, and the Humanities, the qualitative approach is almost always used (except for Economics), while the latter one is usually chosen for the Hard Sciences. Following from this, as a subfield of the hard sciences (medical sciences), Nursing “should” employ more quantitative study as its main unit of analysis. However, as the author of this paper argues, among the hard sciences, this field should be the one which strikes a balance between the qualitative and the quantitative since it deals directly with “people” with an emphasis on an evidenced-based practice (Russell & Gregory, 2003). To support this thesis, this article provides a comparative analysis of two research – one quantitative and one qualitative – that discuss Central Line Associated Bloodstream Infections or CLABSI.
Qualitative Research
In a study by Garman et al (2015) on the relationship between the “hospital’s level” and the outcomes of a program that they have to “prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections” a qualitative approach is mainly employed through the use of in-depth interviews. During the research, one hundred ninety-four (194) interviewees from eight (8) US hospitals were included. The authors preferred the use of an in-depth interview rather than the use of a survey since the main aim of the study is not only to correlate the two (2) variables – hospital level and success in preventing CLABSI – but also to find the ‘points/practices’ that results to this disparity. In the results of the study, it was reported that every hospital, regardless of the level, have the reduction (and prevention) of CLABSI as one of their main goals. However, at “higher-performing sites the goal was explicitly stated, widely embraced, and aggressively pursued” (Scheck McAlearney, Hefner, Robbins, Harrison, & Garman, 2015). Furthermore, the more thorough method employed by the study also found out that...