Research Methodology Assignment 2:
Introduction to a Paper
Marks: 35% of final mark
In this assignment, students will write an introduction to a research paper.
This assignment has been designed so that students can learn to successfully construct and structure the introduction of a research paper. This task will also help students learn how to critically evaluate the information relating to their research topic. This will help students in their research, because they will:
Once completed successfully, this assignment may form the basis of the introduction chapter of your dissertation, or to a research proposal for your supervisor (or potential supervisor).
Include a title, author, introduction and reference list (do not include an abstract, methods or discussion sections).
Student number and name should be given on a cover page or at the top of the first page of the assignment.
References must be relevant to your subject and must consist only of peer-reviewed publications. Newspaper articles, Wikipedia entries, etc. will definitely not be accepted. You may use any referencing style (APA v6 and Vancouver are most commonly used within Curtin University), however, the referencing style must be consistent and conform to specifications. The name of the style used must be given under the references heading.
The length of your introduction should be consistent with that of most published papers within your field. The emphasis of this assignment is on the quality of your introduction, not its length.
An introduction to a paper is definitely not simply a series of summarised references on a topic. An introduction is argumentative (not aggressive).The purpose of the referencing is to provide evidence to support (so-called backing) your thesis statement, research question or key message. You should also integrate the references so as to provide the background to your study: the needs, importance and rationale for the study. You should outline how your project sits within an existing field of research (context), what has been done previously, the “gap” within the existing body of knowledge, and justify your study: how is your contribution to the literature significant? You may also provide information to explain how the remainder of your paper is organised as a “roadmap” to guide the reader.
You are expected to read widely to establish the context for your study, outline your field of research, and identify the gap(s) in the literature that justify the need for your own research. As a rough guide, you should include approximately 20-25 key references in your introduction, although this number may vary depending on the nature of your research topic and the field; the key is the relevance of the literature rather than quantity of citations. However, this does not mean that you will need to find and review only 20-25 references. You may find that you locate and read many more references to build your understanding of your topic, but not necessarily cite them in this assignment.
Page limit: 1 to 4 pages (page margins 25.4 mm ´ 25.4 mm), single spaced, Times New Roman 12pt font.
It is strongly suggested that you choose a topic similar to your potential research project. This will reduce your workload for your proposed research and this unit, and this introduction may eventually form the basis of preparation for your research. If you do not yet have a research project topic please consult with the Unit Coordinator for advice on selecting a topic aligned with your area of interest and study.
The student work will be assessed against five content related criteria, each having a number of sub criteria, along with writing style and adherence to general instructions, to arrive at a mark out of 100 that represents 35% of the final mark for students enrolled in NPSC5000/
NPSC5000 – Assignment 2
Research Aims and Objectives
The selected topic for research analysis was Blood Management Systems (BMS) in the healthcare sector. Patient blood management is considered as a concept of managing blood inventories along with assessing them in the most effective manner in a healthcare unit so that shortages can be avoided (Spahn, 2010). This paper aims towards echoing a research methodology for the chosen topic and learn about the possibilities to intervene. For this purpose, this paper will include a review and argument on the current research and studies, a methodological approach for a new intervention, methods of analysis, and the evaluation of choices.
While many researchers have suggested that the risks associated with Blood Management Systems can be mitigated, the side effects are still unsung. Thus, the research question becomes a subject of argument associated with “How to mitigate the risks that are currently associated with BMS in the healthcare sector?”
In the Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program, based on a Three-pillar Strategy, the writers have aimed towards reflecting the factors associated with the processes of blood management systems (Althoff et al., 2019). In this regard, the paper's objective included determining whether the PMBS (Patient Blood Management System) practices in the healthcare sector are sufficient and safe enough for people of all age. Further, it was found that the three BMS pillars served various areas that were aimed towards the effectiveness of the notion (Meybohm et al., 2017). This becomes a point of debate whether the implications resulted drastically or not as the authors avoided the contemporary review. A similar point of conception was echoed in Patient Blood Management: A Global View by Shander, James, and Gombotz that stated that a few medical procedures in regards to Blood Management Systems echoed the transfusion mode as the most widely used methods in the medical field (Shander, Isbister & Gombotz, 2016). However, the conception can be argued based on the shreds of evidence from Patrick et al. (2017)’s Patient Blood Management Bundles to Facilitate implementation, which stated that the associations seeks potential solutions to the methods that are risky and requires additional and advance support from the unit (Meybohm et al., 2017). Thus, the authors in this journal reflected an approach termed as bundles of implementing effective patient Blood Management Systems in the healthcare units. However, in most cases, the assessment of BMS becomes complicated as the cells of a human body react differently whenever a new bunch of RBCs and CBCs are processed in the body (Abdullah et al., 2017).
In addition to this, in Patient Blood Management, the writers have used the concept of using blood as an element to mitigate the risks that are associated with the processes of BMS (Goodnough, Shander & Riou, 2012). For this purpose, components such as blood risks, prevention and management of national blood inventory, constraints of escalating costs, and unknown blood risks were studied in-depth (Wang et al., 2009). While the paper echoed the alternatives available for transfusion availabilities, it included a gap that lacked the assessments that might have perceived the risks associated differently. In this regard, Gani et al. (2019), in Implementation of a Blood Management Program at a Tertiary Care Hospital, have echoed that Blood Management Programs should be safely implemented to improve quality and reduce unnecessary transfusions (Gani et al., 2019). This can be better understood with the help of Butcher's approach in Cornerstones of patient blood management in surgery (Butcher & Richards, 2018). He stated that perioperative red blood cell carries significant risks for surgical outcomes. For this purpose, identification of all the areas that might serve the basic necessities can be helpful for the healthcare associations in the sector (Murphy & Goodnough, 2015). Thus, it still becomes a point of argument whether the risks that are currently associated with the assessment of Blood Management Systems are replicable or not. For this purpose, the research methodology suggests an optimum solution inspired by relevant journals and research that exhibited certain gaps in their assessments.
The methodological approach aims to echo the potential mitigation for the current risks associated with Blood Management Systems in the healthcare sector. As echoed by Whitlock, Kim and Auerbach in Harms associated with single unit perioperative transfusion: retrospective population-based analysis, adopting BMS systems in surgical assessments should be assessed more carefully as the replications can impact the patients more comprehensively (Whitlock, Kim & Auerbach, 2015). For this purpose, this methodological approach suggests seeking the right sort of survey programs for filling up the gaps that are currently associated in the healthcare units. However, it has also been found from the analytical report of Epstein and Holmberg in Progress in monitoring Blood Safety Transfusion that RBCs can even accelerate the chances of stroke if not handled properly (Epstein & Holmberg, 2010). In this regard, the purpose of the methodology remains limited to assessing all the possibilities that are currently available with the probability of reducing and eliminating the risks associated with Blood Management Systems as it might help to make the process of blood management more efficient and less hackle (Hoffman et al., 2013). For this purpose, the aim will be to establish quality systems that will be less risky for the patients and for their blood management as well (Shaylor et al., 2017). The research methodology also suggests using a higher sensitivity and specificity PBMS.
Methods of Analysis and Instruments of Research
For measuring the efficiencies of PMBS and to mitigate the risks associated with the assessments, the approach will use a comprehensive method. For this purpose, the operative complications will be compares with all the other functions and domains in non-transfused cases (restrictive gap) and assessments where the patients will receive one to three units of red blood cells (transmission of the gaps). This method is inspired by Adina et al. (2018)’s A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of Patient Blood Management (Kleineruschkamp et al., 2019). In the report, the authors have echoed that the results should indicate the assessments of Blood Management Systems that are associated with fewer adverse clinical outcomes compared to control management and maybe cost-effective and less likely to be risky. The methods will also be inspired by Drivers for change: Western Australia Patient Blood Management Program, WHA and ACBSA (Farmer et al., 2013). In this regard, the evaluation practices will include a separate column for red cell mass and specific anemia reserves. Thus, it could be possibly echoed loud that while many researchers have suggested that the risks associated with Blood Management Systems can be mitigated, it becomes a subject of argument in association with the replications (side-effects) of mitigation (Baron et al., 2020). To evaluate this notion, the three pillar matrix will be used as a secondary method of risk assessment for Blood Management Systems in the healthcare sector. With that said, one empirical and respected researcher have echoed that it becomes essential to consider the potential of both the entities that include disease and the cause of disease altogether to assess better diagnosis processes (Cushing, 2013).
From the above segments, it has been found that to establish a BMS that is less risky, establishing effective systems that might help the associations to choose the mode of operation and the medication processes that are less likely to be risky are essential. In this regard, the evaluation of choices can be evident and supported by the notion of Albinarrate et al. (2015) in The assessment of the introduction of a blood management program in orthopaedic surgery (Albinarrate et al., 2015). It stated various processes that can be effectively used to mitigate the risks associated with plasma-derived medicinal products and help assess the BMS systems more effectively. Further, the research methodology also suggested using an appropriate regulatory control that includes strategies to reduce the chances of higher risks in transmissible diseases and blood management systems associated with them. This can be evaluated using evaluation techniques provided in Minimizing blood transfusion in total hip and knee arthroplasty through a multimodal approach (Holt et al., 2016). Thus, the empirical shreds of evidence and the gaps mentioned and classified above can be mitigated with quality systems in the healthcare units.
This paper was aimed towards echoing a research methodology for the chosen topic with regards to the possibilities of intervening. For this purpose, this paper has included a review and argument on the current research and studies, a methodological approach for a new intervention, methods of analysis, and the evaluation of choices. The methodological approach is inspired by various empirical shreds of evidence that might help design a BMS that is less risky for the patients in the healthcare sector. The importance of introducing a less risky PBMS (Patient Blood Management System) is perhaps essential. In this context, the research question requires the support of various sources to establish a foundation of BMS that is designed in order to serve patients of all kind.