Reading Time: 3 minutes

Reply to my peers’ responsesBegin reviewing and replying to peer postings/responses. Participate in the discussion by asking a question, providing a statement of clarification, providing viewpoints with a rationale, challenging aspects of the discussion, or indicating relationships between two or more lines of reasoning in the discussion.As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format. You may use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources.Ethics in HealthcareTaskTwo nurse researchers are interested in studying whether a pain assessment tool for critical care patients is valid and reliable when applied to a group of patients who cannot communicate verbally due to mechanical ventilation. They design a validation study in which randomly selected patients will be assessed using the tool after a painful procedure (tracheal suctioning) and after a nonpainful procedure (oral care). If patient responses result in higher scores after the painful procedure than after the nonpainful one, then the researchers will conclude that the tool is effective for these patients in differentiating pain responses from responses to nursing procedures in general.Using the definitions in the textbook:·  Discuss and draw a conclusion as to whether this study will likely be exempt, expedited, or full review.·  Would the study be considered ethical? Explain your rationale.Peer #1The patients who would be used in this study are intubated which requires tracheal suctioning and oral care as part of the daily care plan. Minimal risk is involved in this case considering the actions being studied would be conducted regardless of the research study. That would lead us to lean towards this study being expedited, but with the patients being mechanically ventilated they cannot give consent to participate in the study. They now fall under the special populations category as a person with a disability which would require a full board review. We can ask the health care proxy or next of kin for consent, but I still believe that considering the circumstances a full board review is needed to proceed to protect not only the study participants, but also the persons conducting the study. I do believe that this study would be ethical considering its topic of research is focused on pain responses to daily care in mechanically ventilated patients, thus allowing us to better anticipate the needs of our patients.Houser, J (2018). Nursing research; Reading, using and creating evidence (4th edition). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.Peer #2According to Houser, exempt review is defined as a “review of study proposals that pose no risk to subjects; the full institutional review board is not required to participate” (Houser, 2018, p. 481).  Expedited review is defined as a “review of study proposals that pose minimal risk to subjects; one or two institutional review board members participate” (Houser, 2018, p. 481).  Full review is defined as a “review of study proposals that pose more than minimal risk to subjects, that do not qualify for exempt status, and in which the full institutional review board committee participates” (Houser, 2018, p. 481). When reviewing this proposed study, I would say that this would be an exempt review.  I choose exempt review because this study is using an assessment tool, which does not in itself posed a risk to the patients’ safety.  I do acknowledge that the premise of this tool being used is in response after painful and nonpainful procedures occurring to the patient, however, these procedures are not being enacted from the study itself and are procedures performed as part of routine standard of care. I do not believe this study to be ethical. These patients are unable to sign informed consent or are even aware the study is being performed.  This breaks the principles of bioethics on human subjects.Houser, J. (2018). Nursing Research: Reading, Using and Creating Evidence. [South University]. Retrieved from