Omparison of Open vs. Restricted Visitation in the ICU on Patient and Family Satisfaction

USING THE FOLLOWING SOURCE :

Ramos, F., Fumis, R., Azevedo, L., & Schettino, G. (2013). Perceptions of an open visitation
policy by intensive care workers. iAnnals of Intensive Care,/i i3: 34

mi(PMC3854481).

Retrieved March 16, 2015, from nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854481.

please mention both the title and the authors of the article in the introductory paragraph of your critique.
Quotations: do not quote directly from the paper. Always use your own words to paraphrase the researchers

Writing Format
Page 1separate title page
Pages 2 -4 (literature critique): try to limit 3 pages
No separate reference page: before introducing the literature, provide the article information in APA reference format.
After reporting the reference, provide the summary, critical evaluation and conclusion (Use of 3 headings)

Summary (Introduction): (approximately 0.5 page less than 1 page)
First, provide the article information in APA reference format (top).
Second, provide a succinct summary in the first paragraph including the background and purpose of the study. Also give a brief description of the methods used to address the questions or hypotheses.
After reading the first paragraph, the reader should know the purpose, hypotheses (or research question), and findings. Note that this summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical Evaluation: Critique structure (approximately 2 pages)
Describe specifics about the research design, including the sample, instrumentation, and data analysis. Address threats to internal validity. Following the information on threats to internal validity, provide suggestions regarding how these threats could have been dealt with. This shows a high level of understanding.
Address both strengths and weaknesses of the article. Consider the following questions.
Were the methods, in some way, unique or especially interesting? Or do you see any problems or shortcomings in the methods?
Did the provided data answer the questions that the authors set forth?
Was the presentation of the data (figures or tables) clear and convincing?
Can you see any obvious problems or inconsistencies with the way the data were analyzed or interpreted?
Are the results able to be generalized to other (clinical) settings? Do their results have clinical (EBP) implications?
Is the paper hard to follow? Poorly organized? A
pleasure to read?

Conclusion (less than 0.5 page)

A statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work