The research topic for this critical review relates to the benefits of nurses promoting teamwork in acute mental health settings; this is an important topic to consider for a number of reasons. Broadly, the Department of Health (2013: p. 7) identifies teamwork as one of the priorities in its aim to deliver high quality, effective and compassionate care in the National Health Service; indeed, the benefits of teamwork in healthcare settings generally are well-established in the literature. In the mental health context specifically, research suggests there are a variety of benefits of nurses promoting teamwork in acute mental health settings – including in relation to improving nurses’ practice, their work-related satisfaction and patient outcomes
…show more content…
Four papers retrieved during the literature search, and of direct relevance to the research question, were selected for critical appraisal in this review (Cleary et al., 2012a; Cleary et al., 2012b; Deacon & Cleary, 2013; van Bogaert et al., 2013). Tables describing the characteristics of each of these papers are presented in Appendix 1. As described in those tables, three of the selected studies are qualitative (Cleary et al., 2012a; Cleary et al., 2012b; Deacon & Cleary, 2013) and one is quantitative (van Bogaert et al., 2013). In this section of the essay, published critiquing tools – the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP, 2013a; 2013b) tools – are used to critique each study’s use of some of the key elements of the research process (i.e. methodology, sampling, data collection and data analysis). It is important to note that the quantitative paper (van Bogaert et al., 2013) is a survey study, however no CASP tool specific to this type of study exists; the CASP (2013b) tool for cohort studies was deemed the most appropriate to critically analyse van Bogaert et al.’s (2013) study, though it must be noted that there are sections of this tool which are irrelevant to the study and which have been excluded from discussion in this
Four papers retrieved during the literature search, and of direct relevance to the research question, were selected for critical appraisal in this review (Cleary et al., 2012a; Cleary et al., 2012b; Deacon & Cleary, 2013; van Bogaert et al., 2013). Tables describing the characteristics of each of these papers are presented in Appendix 1. As described in those tables, three of the selected studies are qualitative (Cleary et al., 2012a; Cleary et al., 2012b; Deacon & Cleary, 2013) and one is quantitative (van Bogaert et al., 2013). In this section of the essay, published critiquing tools – the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP, 2013a; 2013b) tools – are used to critique each study’s use of some of the key elements of the research process (i.e. methodology, sampling, data collection and data analysis). It is important to note that the quantitative paper (van Bogaert et al., 2013) is a survey study, however no CASP tool specific to this type of study exists; the CASP (2013b) tool for cohort studies was deemed the most appropriate to critically analyse van Bogaert et al.’s (2013) study, though it must be noted that there are sections of this tool which are irrelevant to the study and which have been excluded from discussion in this