"Evidenced-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Newborn Pain" is an excellent example of a paper on child development. Spence et al conducted a study to foster the acceptance of methodical proof and to lower the EBP loophole for easing of infants’ pain through the composition of a medical practice guide (Spence et al, 2010). Methods used in this study included a review of practice and a survey of medical practice guiding principles. Spence et al undertook these methods to ensure the accessibility of present practices and guiding principles for the easing of pain in babies in 23 hospitals in Australia.
The researchers surveyed guiding principles via the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool. The article also assumed a literature search to garner the scientific proof essential for the finest practice when easing pain in newborns. Spence et al found out that postnatal units in 17 hospitals had medical guiding principles (Spence et al, 2010). Every unit was peer-reviewed and evaluated in line with the domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool. The study also discovered a lack of uniformity across the guiding principles.
Therefore, Spence et al designed a guiding principle for achieving the best practice centred on the best existing methodical proof and commendations from the Royal Australian College of Physicians. The researchers added an audit instrument, along with a set of rules for routine pain assessment, to foster continuing compliance with the newly designed guiding principle (Spence et al, 2010). The researchers did not address both sides of the issue. Spence et al fail to point out what a nurse or caregiver is supposed to do in case the newly designed guiding principle fails to alleviate the newborn’ s pain.
The health assessment of a newborn during postnatal care by a nurse, together with a doctor, needs a contingency of a positive and negative outcome. There was no bias involved in the study. Proof of balanced research design and conclusion is the inclusion and integration of an audit instrument and algorithmic procedure for assessing pain. The audit instrument is comprehensive in the sense that it filters any personal perspectives and seeks the counsel and insight of experienced caregivers and practitioners.
An algorithmic procedure for pain assessment identifies the limits of the newly designed guideline and enables a caregiver to know when to continue implementing it and to stop as well (Spence et al, 2010). I believe Spence et al did sufficient research. Spence et al consulted commendations from independent patient-care institutions, conducted a thorough literature search, consulted other evidence-based guidelines, and even researched on how to make instructions for steps to using their newly designed evidence-based guideline. I am uncertain whether the article is technically correct since it develops a new evidence-based practice for nurses to use when managing the pain of newborns.
Determining this technicality requires one to implement the guideline firsthand. However, one element of the argument that Spence et al could improve with more detail is the expounding of the results obtained and their role in the creation of the guideline. A follow-up article concerning the success rate and effectiveness of the freshly developed guideline would certainly be useful. I agree with the article and it changed my opinion about ways to alleviate the pain of newborns.
I can use the article’ s guideline and conclusions in differing environments to support current practices or challenge nurses to fill the evidence-based practice gap when alleviating the pain of newborns.
ReferencesSpence, K., Henderson-Smart, D., New, K., Evans, C., Whitelaw, J., & Woolnough, R. (2010). Evidenced-based clinical practice guideline for management of newborn pain. Journal Of Paediatrics And Child Health, 46(4), 184-192. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754.2009.01659.x