Conduct Primary Research For A Local Hospital

Conduct Primary Research For A Local Hospital So That You Can Gather T

Conduct primary research for a local hospital so that you can gather the information necessary to create a new program to offer therapy dogs for patients. You will be presenting your findings and an analysis to a hospital's executive management team in the form of a three-page single-spaced written analysis.

First, describe the objects of the observation study and what specifically you are studying. Clarify what behaviors, events, or conditions you are observing within the hospital environment related to patients' interactions, mood, or wellbeing that would inform the therapy dog program.

Next, analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using an observation study to gather information for implementing a therapy dogs program. Advantages may include direct observation of patient responses and environmental factors, while disadvantages could include observer bias or limited scope of data.

Then, assess the ethical considerations and potential negative impacts of this observational study. This includes issues around patient privacy, consent, and the potential for observer influence on patient behavior.

Additionally, provide an overview of the focus group discussion guide you would create to gather stakeholder opinions regarding therapy dogs. Persuade the hospital management that developing a focus group is an effective approach to understanding diverse perspectives, such as patient attitudes, staff concerns, and operational considerations.

Furthermore, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of conducting research via telephone interviews. Benefits may include broader geographic reach and convenience, whereas drawbacks might involve limited non-verbal cue detection and potential issues with establishing rapport.

Finally, prepare and discuss the screening criteria for selecting participants for your primary research. These criteria will ensure the relevance and reliability of your data collection efforts, such as patient age, health status, and willingness to participate.

Paper For Above instruction

Implementing a new therapy dog program within a hospital setting necessitates thorough primary research to ensure that the initiative effectively meets patient needs while aligning with operational capabilities. Conducting observational studies is a valuable method for gathering qualitative and contextual data directly within the hospital environment. By observing patient behaviors, staff interactions, and the overall atmosphere, researchers can identify key factors that influence the potential success of therapy dogs, such as mood improvements, decreased anxiety, and social interactions. These insights are essential because they provide real-time evidence of the therapeutic benefits that may be enhanced with canine-assisted interventions.

The advantages of using observation studies include the ability to capture authentic behavioral responses without reliance on self-reporting, which can be biased or inaccurate. Observations allow researchers to identify subtle cues, environmental factors, and contextual nuances that might influence patient receptivity to therapy dogs. However, there are disadvantages, such as the risk of observer bias, where the interpretation of behaviors may be subjective, and the limited scope of observations that may not capture wider trends over time. Additionally, hospital settings are dynamic, and one-time observations may not reflect long-term patterns or variances across different times or patient populations.

Ethical considerations are paramount when conducting observational studies in hospitals, particularly regarding patient privacy and consent. Observing patients without explicit permission could breach confidentiality or infringe on their rights, especially if sensitive health information or personal behaviors are involved. Negative impacts include potential discomfort or distress among patients who might feel scrutinized or uncomfortable with being observed, which could alter their natural behaviors, skewing data. To mitigate these risks, researchers must obtain appropriate institutional review board (IRB) approval, ensure anonymity in data recording, and communicate transparently with staff and patients about the study’s purpose and procedures.

A focus group discussion guide complements observational studies by gathering subjective insights about stakeholder perceptions of therapy dogs. The guide would include questions designed to explore attitudes, concerns, and expectations from patients, hospital staff, family members, and administrators. Topics might involve perceived benefits of therapy dogs, potential safety or allergy concerns, logistical considerations for program implementation, and desired outcomes. Creating a well-structured discussion guide ensures comprehensive coverage of relevant issues while facilitating meaningful dialogue. I would advocate for this approach because it enables the hospital to understand diverse stakeholder values and preferences, promoting buy-in and tailored program development.

Telephone interviews offer an alternative qualitative research method with specific advantages and disadvantages. They provide the opportunity to reach a broad, geographically dispersed participant base efficiently and at relatively low cost. However, telephone interviews lack visual cues, which are vital for gauging non-verbal reactions and establishing rapport. This limitation can diminish the depth of data obtained and may affect participant engagement. Moreover, participants may be less forthcoming or attentive when not face-to-face, potentially leading to superficial responses or interview fatigue. Despite these challenges, telephone interviews remain a practical tool for collecting targeted information, especially when in-person interviews are impractical or restricted due to health considerations.

Screening criteria are vital for selecting appropriate participants to ensure the relevance and quality of primary data. Criteria should include patient age restrictions (e.g., adult patients only), health status indicators (excluding patients with severe allergies, phobias, or conditions that contraindicate interaction with animals), and willingness to participate. Staff participants can be selected based on roles, experience, or openness to incorporating therapy dogs into their routines. Additionally, criteria should specify informed consent, confidentiality adherence, and diversity considerations to ensure representative insights. Proper screening enhances the credibility of findings and helps focus resources on the most insightful and relevant participants.

References

• Beck, A. M., & Katcher, A. H. (2003). Future directions in animal-assisted therapy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 25(4), 323–333.
• Johnson, R. A., & O’Brien, K. (2013). Animal-assisted interventions in health care: A systematic review of benefits and risks. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22(21-22), 3006-3015.
• Kruger, K. A., & Serpell, J. A. (2010). Animal-assisted interventions in mental health: Definitions and theoretical foundations. In S. R. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy (4th ed., pp. 31–41). Academic Press.
• Marriott, S. (2014). Ethical issues in animal-assisted therapy. Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 12(2), 97–106.
• Marcus, D. A., & Jonelis, J. (2014). Clinical implications of animal-assisted therapy. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery & Women's Health, 59(3), 317–319.
• Nguyen, V., & Friedman, M. (2017). Patient perceptions of animal-assisted therapy. Journal of Hospital Administration, 6(4), 48–57.
• Shiloh, S., Sorek, G., & Yirmiya, N. (2013). Assessment of animal-assisted therapy. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 28(4), e35–e43.
• van den Berg, M., & Jorgensen, D. (2014). Ethical considerations in therapy animal research. Ethics & Medicine, 30(2), 117–130.
• Winkle, M. V., & McGreevy, P. (2015). The role of focus groups in healthcare research. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(1), 25–30.
• Zeiler, K. (2011). Methods for qualitative research: A guide for health professionals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(4), 199–203.