Protective Action After Body Fluid Exposure, Article Critique Example

Introduction: Summary of Article

The article, ‘Protective Action after Body Fluid Exposure,’ was written by two credible nursing professionals, namely Andine Davenport and Frank Meyers (2009), from a managerial perspective regarding accidents, which occur on clinical areas affecting professionals administering care.

A captivating statement, projecting the factual proposition, ‘accidental exposure to blood or other potentially infectious material (OPIM) such as cerebrospinal or pleural fluid can be a life changing experience’ (Davenport & Meyers, 2009) opens the exposition. Thereafter, terms were defined; suggestions on how to respond when accidents occur offered; implication for confronting the source advocated; determining whether PEP is indicated as well as relevant tips on patient education as a prophylactic measure, were outlined.

Analysis

Authors’ Credibility and Theoretical Approach

Andine Davenport and Frank Meyers (2009) possess nursing management skills and are duly accredited to conduct studies regarding ‘Protective Action after Body Fluid Exposure.’ Their credentials testify of the invested authority to inform on the subject under review. The theoretical model is depicted in Ada Collins’ scenario of what actually practitioners encounter from time to time on clinical areas.

Logistics of content delivery and conclusion

Content delivery style was very informative for nursing management, staff and patient alike. The tone was very empathetic towards Ada Collins. In emphasizing, ‘accidents happen’ (Davenport & Meyers, 2009) the authors are insinuating the importance of this content.

Precisely, conclusions appear to be understood from the beginning. The hypothesis indicates that the outcome could be life-changing. This is expressed with a deep sense of euphemism. In the presence of a truly devastating sequel to body fluid exposure, the authors skillfully introduced.

Supporting Evidence from Other Sources

Upon close observation these authors used 10 credible outside sources to augment the value of every nurse obtaining knowledge on how to respond in such an emergency. Sources are contemporary and citations relevant to the particular topic referenced.

Validity of Conclusions Drawn

A conclusive theme linking concepts of prevention and best policy brought the authors deliberations to a brisk end with Ada Collins fading away from the lime light of their theories. It would seem, however, that conclusions regarding a distinct comprehensive approach towards most appropriate responses to‘Protective Action after Body Fluid Exposure’ were reiterations of assumptions formulated by OSHA, CDC and HIPPA Accountability Act (CDC, 2005). In this sense it can be concluded that even though the authors did not arrive at a new response those referenced were valid.

Impacting Nursing Statement

The impacting nursing statement pertaining to this article, ‘Protective Action after Body Fluid Exposure,’ written by Andine Davenport and Frank Meyers (2009), could be addressed from two perspectives. First, it can be interpreted from one created by the authors and secondly one derived by the reader after digesting this imploring content.

A very powerfully impacting nursing statement is observed in the beginning sentences of this article. ‘Accidental exposure to blood or other potentially infectious material (OPIM) such as cerebrospinal or pleural fluid can be a life changing experience’ (Davenport & Meyers, 2009).’Life changing experience’ denotes a modesty with which the authors have articulated magnificent adjustments to the nurses’ physical, social, psychological as well as spiritual life due to such an unfortunate encounter (CDC, 2001)

As such, in support of this acknowledgement, it would be pertinent to declare that in every action, prevention is always better than a cure or no cure. Therefore, in the absence of vaccines, all strategies/techniques of barrier nursing must be adapted to ensure safety of persons interacting with infected patients.

References

CDC (2005) Updated US Public Health Service Guidelines for Management of Occupational Exposures to HIV and recommendations for Post exposure prophylaxis.MMWR.54 (RR- 9), 1-17

CDC (2001) Updated US Public Health Service Guidelines for Management of Occupational Exposures to HBV, HCV and HIV recommendations for Post exposure Prophylaxis.MMWR Recomm Rep. 50( RR-11) 1-42

Davenport Andine, MeyersFrank (2009). Protective Action after Body Fluid Exposure. Nursing Management. 39(5), 22-29