There are no grammatical errors and the format of the paper remains true to APA. There is also continuity and consistency in terms of the language used in the paper.
The data is presented in a means that has continuity with the sections highlighted in the methodology, including such sections as ‘patient-patient interactions’ and ‘individualised care’. The analysis of the data collected via the VIPS method is presented in the paper through a combination of prose and tables. The review process and data collection is guided by a framework known as VIPS, which the authors explain adequately by referencing other authors (Brookers et al, 2016). The review committee created caries out a stepwise review process that is summarised in a diagram in the paper, so as to ensure an objective selection of peer-reviewed research articles. The methodology used in this paper is mainly a reviewing process whose steps are explained at each stage. As a result, the literature review is left out and instead, the authors carry out a detailed explanation of their methodology and review process. Instead, the paper is a review of the contents of several other articles. The gap is a result of the fact that the paper does not use primary sources for its data. The paper also lacks a literature review. The absence of a hypothesis is not the only unique feature of the paper. Instead, a study objective is provided, from which one can infer the hypothesis. In this paper, however, the hypothesis is not explicitly stated.
The hypothesis is the main statement of intent for the paper, and is usually modified into a research question as well, augmented by objectives that enable the researcher to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The next major section in any academic paper is the hypothesis. It provides a detailed background by defining the illness discussed therein, and explaining why an evidence-based study of staff experiences would be relevant to future policy formulation and amendment. It introduces the topic that the paper covers, and explains the rationale behind the authors’ choice to research the issue. The background is the first major section of the paper. The authors carefully explain all the reasoning behind the justification, review, and data analysis portions of the study, showing that there was no bias in terms of the methods that were chosen or the secondary sources that were selected for review. The information in the introduction and the research process appear to be objective. In terms of objectivity, an analysis of the paper’s content shows that the authors do not show any bias. Therefore, it is easy to understand the reasoning behind the process of the research, which appears to be logical. A clear train of thought is also demonstrated in the journey from the background and introduction to the results and the conclusion. In terms of the quality of the rationale in the paper, there is a great amount of detail displayed in the text, and the authors make sure to explain the background behind each issue in a succinct manner. In particular, the authors make references to patient-centred care and familial relationships, which display a strong relationship of the paper’s content to the holistic care theories that guide nursing practices and frameworks. The authors make several references to nursing theories and terminology associated with nursing healthcare. The article appears in a nursing journal, and this discipline is heavily reflected throughout the paper.
Thus, the authors decided to carry out a review of staff experiences with such initiatives and patients, so as to create a basis on which evidence-based policy amendment and formulation can be carried out for the treatment of patients with dementia. The authors state that there has been a steady increase in policies and initiatives targeted at treating patients that have dementia, without corresponding studies into the efficacy and quality of care in these initiatives (Baker, 2014). The main purpose of the paper is to carry out a systematic review of several healthcare staff experiences when it comes to caring for patients diagnosed with dementia, for the purposes of finding what barriers exist in current frameworks for their care. Part 2 will consist of a rating scale, which will rate the quality of important sections of the paper as well as provide comments for each element that is rated. Part 1 will consist of a summary of sections of the paper, which will analyse the important parts of the research process such as the hypothesis, the methodology, and the discussion. The article is called “Healthcare staffs’ experiences and perceptions of caring for people with dementia in the acute setting: Qualitative evidence synthesis” and it will be critiqued in two sections (Houghton et al, 2016). This is a critique of a paper presented on acute care of dementia.