Assignment 2-1 – Peer Review of Quentin Michalchuk’s Research Proposal

To:                  Quentin Michalchuk

From:             Hilton Ma

Date:               October 21, 2020

Subject:          Peer Review of Proposal for ‘Implementing a Hand Hygiene Program at the BC Children’s Hospital Campus’

 

Hi Quentin,

Your formal report proposal tackles an interesting and very relevant problem in todays society with an ongoing pandemic. I have made some comments and suggestions below.

First Impressions:

The formal report proposal was well written and organized, making it easy to read and understand. While there were no major grammatical mistakes, I believe the provided solution may be too open ended. From reading your introduction, I understand that the issue would require a multifaced approach; however, the proposed solution is very broad with no immediately perceivable conclusion – which, I believe may contribute to the proposal’s rejection.

Organization:

Overall, the organization of the proposal was outstanding. The proposal followed a methodic progression, with appropriate formatting, bolding, and bullet points that helped the reader digest the material.

Expression:

The proposal was written with an excellent mastery of professional tone. I do not have any suggestions for changes in regards to the expression.

Content:

For the content, the inclusion of relevant statistics was an excellent idea. The 4.7% hand hygiene compliance statistic provided a professional touch, while also portraying the necessity of a solution.

The proposed solution may require a re-examination. In essence, the proposed solution was a call to research in how best tackle the issue. While I understand the issue requires a multifaced approach, this proposed solution is open ended with no immediate conclusion to the issue – generating an over-ambitious perception. To remedy this, I foresee 2 solutions:

1. Split the solution into multiple proposals. This would help break up the solution into manageable chunks.
2. Outline and focus the on the several key areas within the multifaceted solution with high likelihood of success. With this solution, the proposal will still be very ambitious; but, the targeted key solutions provide a more defined ending.

Grammar/Typos:

There were no significant errors, nor were there any spelling errors. There were some parts that could use additional punctuation. Some have been listed below.

1. “before an aseptic procedure, after contact with bodily fluids and before and after entering the patient’s room” in the first paragraph of the introduction. This sentence explains the 4 key moments that hand washing should be applied. It could use a comma after the “bodily fluids” to help the reader separate these moments.
2. “one must take into account both the younger patient population as well as the parents and health care workers’ (HCW) unique beliefs within the culture of the workplace” in the 2^nd paragraph of the introduction. A comma could be used after “patient population”.
3. “In addition, it was found that health care worker (HCW) compliance rates are not as high as reported, and that changing this behavior is extremely difficult, with current efforts proving to be insufficient”, in the statement of problems section. This sentence is very long and contains multiple ideas. It could be split into multiple sentences or a semicolon could be used after “reported”.

Concluding Comments:

The proposal was written extremely well with a masterful usage of professional tone and organization. The key aspect for polishing this proposal would be to redefine, and further focus the proposed solution into a more conclusive solution. There were also some minor punctuation errors, with some sentences requiring additional commas to help separate thoughts.

This proposal was beautifully written. I am looking forward to seeing your implemented solution at the hospital in the future.