review the Research Methods and Findings of the Verweij study conducted in 2014 in this week’s resources. The primary purpose of this quantitative research study was to investigate the effectiveness of an intervention to decrease medication errors in a hospital. T
describe three conclusions you have drawn from the findings in this study, taking into consideration the limitations of the study. Next describe three implications for clinical practice.
4.1.1 Age and Gender The respondents have been characterized into six gatherings of age: under 18 years of age; between 19-25 years of age; between 26-35 years of age; between 36-45 years of age; between 46-55 years of age; 56 years of age or more. Table 4.1 shows that there were no respondents whose age was under 18 years of age. Around one-fifth (33 or 21.6 percent) of the respondents whose age was between 19-25 years of age. The greater part (78 or 51.0 percent) of the respondents whose age was between 26-35 years of age. Around (33 or 21.6 percent) of the respondents whose age was between 36-45 years of age. Just (8 or 5.2 percent) respondents whose age was between 46-55 years of age and just a single individual whose age was 56 years of age or more. 4.1.2 Level of training The respondents have been arranged into six gatherings of instructive level: secondary school, recognition (two years), four year college education, graduate degree, doctoral degree and other. Table 4.3 shows that there were just about (11 or 7.2 percent) of the respondents who had secondary school. Around (5 or 3.3 percent) of the respondents who had recognition (two years). Around 33% (52 or 34.0 percent) of the respondents who had four year certification. More than third (60 or 39.2 percent) of the respondents who had graduate degree. Around (23 or 15 percent) of the respondents who had doctoral degree and around (2 or 1.3 percent) holding different kinds of declarations. 4.1.3 Monthly Income The respondents have been arranged into seven gatherings of month to month pay: Less than 2,999; 3,000 – 5,999; 6,000 – 8,999; 9,000 – 11,999; 12,000 – 14,999; 15,000 – 19,999 and More than 20,000 SAR every month. Table 4.4 demonstrates that there were right around (12 or 7.8 percent) of the respondents who had under 2,999 SAR salary. Around (15 or 9.8 percent) had between 3K – 5,999 SAR. Around (22 or 14.4 percent) had between 6K – 8,999 SAR. Around 17.6 and 17.0 percent had under 12K and 15K individually. The dominant part (28 or 18.3 percent) of respondents had between 15K – 19,999 SAR every month and around (23 or 15.0 percent) have had in excess of 20K SAR as month to month wage. 4.2 Level of Selected Variables This part talks about the respondents’ level of concurrence on framework quality variables, data quality factors and administration quality elements. The discoveries are exhibited in frequencies, rates, and means. The exchange likewise stresses the information adequacy and factors impact on online business development inside Saudi Arabia. 4.2.1 Level of assention in view of framework quality As far as System Quality Approach, it can be found in Table 4.5 that 58 (37.9 percent) of the respondents are “Unequivocally Agree”, while 29 (19 percent) of the respondents are “Concur” and 28 (18.3 percent) “Fairly Agree”. Twenty-two (14.4 percent) of the respondents are “Not Sure”. Ten (6.5 percent) are “Fairly Disagree” while 2 (1.3 percent) of them are “Oppose this idea”. Just 4 respondents (2.6 percent) are “Firmly Disagree”. The discoveries showed factor 2 (Ease of Use) as the most elevated amount of assention among the respondents (M=5.66, SD=1.531) in this class. Then again, factor 4 (Reliability) had the most minimal level of assention among the respondents (M=5.34, SD=1.717). On account of the factor investigation, one vital perspective is to test the presumptions. The two key methods utilized are the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) examining sufficiency test and the Bartlett test for sphericity. The KMO tests the suitability of the information, while the Bartlett tests for relationships. For framework quality, these tests are appeared on Table 4.7. As appeared on Table 4.7, the KMO is 0.898. As indicated by Field (2005, p650), the suggested least KMO is 0.5 Values in the vicinity of 0.5 and 0.7 are considered as average. KMO of qualities in the vicinity of 0.7 and 0.8 are considered as great, while values over 0.8 are considered as incredible. In light of the KMO of 0.898 created in this examination, it has been legitimized that the factor investigation was fitting for this information. Bartlett’s measure tests the invalid speculation that the first connection lattice is a character framework. For factor examination to work, it in essential for a few factors to have connections; if the R-lattice were a character, at that point all relationship coefficients would be zero. Consequently there is a need to test for hugeness (have p <0>0>