Assignment 1: NPSC5000 Searching for and analysing scientific arguments
Please note that this assessment is a simulation of a part of the research process. It is designed to help you develop foundational research skills that are required to complete your MSc course successfully.
In this assignment, you will:
There are three parts to this assignment. You will need to complete all three parts to achieve a pass. Failure to complete one part will result in a fail even if you score over 50% for the other parts. Please note the submission date for each part.
A1 Part 1 Topic Identification (20 marks )
A1 Part 2 Literature search (50 marks due 19/03/21)
You may need to refine your search before finding two papers that satisfy both conditions and are useful to your research topic. Please be mindful that a highly cited paper will not necessarily be current or relevant; a bad paper may receive many citations too! As a very rough guide, a well-cited paper may have over 100 citations and will have recent papers that cite it, but this is discipline-dependent with good papers in engineering or mathematics having fewer citations than, say, chemistry or Earth science.
Note: Your answer for Part 2 should not exceed 2 pages ((page margins 254 mm × 254 mm), single spaced, Times New Roman 12pt font)
A1 Part 3 Analysis of arguments (70 marks)
1. Critically evaluate the strength of the arguments from each of the journal articles and integrate evidence from these sources with any additional cited literature you think is necessary to support your evaluation.
2. You should present your evaluation in the form of an argument by analysing the argument(s). Address the following questions explicitly:
3. How did you evaluate the strength of the claims presented by the authors? What indicators of the quality of an argument such as soundness, validity, clarity, reasoning, consistency and logic were present? Evaluate the evidence used to support the arguments.
4. Provide a reference list at the end of your document for Part 3. The reference list is not included in the page count.
5. Your analysis should be structured in connected paragraphs.
Note: Your answer for Part 3 should not exceed 2 pages ((page margins 254 mm × 254 mm), single spaced, Times New Roman 12pt font)
Structure of submissions
Student number and name should be given on a cover page or at the top of the first page of the assignment.
Use APA. Make sure the referencing conforms to specifications.
NPSC5000 – Assignment 1 (Part 3)
The blood management system is considered an approach to handle blood supplies in the healthcare sector. In this regard, the literature review was presented to support the effective notion of this topic. This paper will aim towards conducting a critical reflection on both the journal articles that were used in Part 2 – A literature review. The articles were Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy by Althoff et al. (2019) and Patient Blood Management by Goodnough, Tim, and Bruno (2012). While the first aimed towards providing an assessment on the potential of areas associated with evaluating the effectiveness of BMS, the aim of the second article was about echoing the areas of risk assessments in blood management systems.
Critical Reflection on Article 1
In Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy, the objective of the paper included determination of whether the blood management system that is multidisciplinary is effective to reduce the complication rate during the clinical practices or not (Althoff et al., 2019). For this purpose, the authors have used a systematic method of meta-analysis where the eligible studies included 3 BMS pillars with one measure per pillar. However, the conduction by Tricco et al. (2012) echoed that the effectiveness of the complication rate in clinical practices cannot be derived from the current legacy of thresholds (Tricco et al., 2012). Thus, it becomes essential to consider a different approach for different patients. The three pillars that were reflected by the authors in Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy can be used as a generalized way to conduct the BMS programs. In this regard, the authors have included consideration of some essential factors such as the red blood cells unit, mortality rates, and complication ratios (Althoff et al., 2019).
A similar integration was presented in Patient Blood Management: A Global View by Shander et al (2016). The article found that blood management systems might be directed to treat intense iron deficiencies, which could be effective in diminishing the patient's red platelets (RBCs) or hemoglobin (Hb) (Shander et al., 2016). It also states that an intense weakness accelerates the body's versatile reactions, like expanded heart yield and a decreased foundational vascular opposition with vasodilation of the vessels to the significant organs. This results in an expansion of tissue extraction, all to fall flat at various phases of movement. This was used as the second pillar in the Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy (Althoff et al., 2019). Thus, it could be echoed loud that the validity of the Althoff et al. article could be integrated amongst the general practising sessions as well jut that the complication ratios have to be kept in mind before proceeding for the final assessments.
Further, in the Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy, it was echoed by the authors that the implementation of BMS systems has been found to decrease the risks of transfusion rates by 39% where the risk ratios were 0.61%. In this regard, the authors reflected a part of using Aspirin during various assessments such as artery bypass surgery and clotting. The clarity could be driven with the help of the study conducted by Cholette et al. They have echoed in their paper that the 2015 meta-investigation of 2399 individuals going through coronary vein sidestep a medical procedure exhibited expanded dying, red platelet (RBC) bonding, and careful re-exploration in patients who didn't have their anti-inflammatory medicine suspended preoperatively (Cholette et al., 2018). In the absence of pediatric information, most focuses choose Aspirin before elective medical procedure depends on the current grown-up assessments.
Althoff et al have also stated that various blood management programs have advanced gradually and are best when various mediations are consolidated. The authors have coordinated BMS into 3 primary columns. These included columns such as comprehensive anemia management, reduction of unnecessary blood loss, and optimization of specified tolerances (Althoff et al., 2019). Further, 17 studies were conducted that included data of around 2, 37,779 patients who have undergone surgery and required blood assessments as well (Althoff et al., 2019). Thus, the empirical evidence shows the reasoning of Althoff’s findings along with their legitimacy of using three pillars for this purpose.
To conclude the critical reflection, it was found that this journal article aimed towards determining whether a multidisciplinary blood management program for patients undergoing surgery is effective for reducing perioperative complication rates and improving clinical outcome or not. In this regard, all the information that was gathered and presented in the form of empirical shreds of evidence was justified and thus, the logical explanation was present throughout the article.
Critical Reflection on Article 2
In-Patient Blood Management, the authors have developed an objective of using the blood and its components more appropriately by minimizing their side effects. For this purpose, the authors have echoed four major goals. These included the areas associated with known blood risks, prevention and management of national blood inventory, unknown blood risks, and the constraints of escalating costs (Goodnough et al., 2012).
The soundness of the article was not biased and instead focused on evaluating the alternatives available in the blood management sector. Goodnough et al. echoed the concept as “promoting the availability of transfusion alternatives” and thus, the soundness is clarified at this part (Goodnough et al., 2012). Various other assessments such as the peer review by Meybohm et al. (2017) have also focused on simplifying the recommendations for Blood Management System's validity across the world but the tone of stating the empirical shreds of evidence was not healthy (Meybohm et al., 2017). In this regard, Goodnough and the team in Patient Blood Management echo loud that the appropriate use of blood and blood components, to minimize their use, should be the priority of healthcare units, globally (Goodnough et al., 2012).
Since the assessments are integrated very recently, the validity becomes easier to track. A similar integration was applied by Shander and team in Patient Blood Management as Standard of Care where the concept of blood management system was echoed as a spectrum of care for both out and inpatient settings in the healthcare sector (Shander et al., 2016). Further, the qualitative review conducted by Shaylor et al. in 2017 has also integrated a similar strategy to manage obstetrics in Blood Management Systems.
The authors in Patient Blood Management have also conducted a compatibility test where around 9000 patients and their data were assessed (Goodnough et al., 2012). After the test, it has been found that the risk of cross-blood management was reduced from 1:133 to 1:328. Thus, this accelerates the concept of blood management systems as a mode of promoting the alternatives for transfusion availabilities.
For tracking the PBMS more effectively, Goodnough et al. in Patient Blood Management have echoed the transformation of blood management systems into a mode of promoting the alternatives for transfusion availabilities (Goodnough et al., 2012). In this regard, the study conducted by authors reflects that; since the supply of blood is limited, scrutiny and importance of reducing blood utilization for the healthcare institutions become essential to consider in the first place. A similar reflection was presented by Goodnough in 2013 when the transfusion of Blood Management showed up as an age of medical outputs (Goodnough, 2013). Lastly, considering the consistency and reasoning of this journal article, all the shreds of evidence were backed up from government sites such as Practice Guidelines for blood component therapy (Goodnough et al., 2012). In this regard, the core foundation for presenting the alternatives becomes essential to be prioritized for assessing the blood management systems more effectively.