The current state of evidence-based practice in nurses across the United States

Background/Significance: Although multiple studies have supported that evidence-based practice (EBP) improves the quality of healthcare, enhances patient outcomes, reduces the geographic variation in care and decreases healthcare costs, it is not consistently implemented in hospitals and healthcare systems across the United States. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the current state of EBP in nurses across the United States. Methods: A descriptive survey was conducted with nurses from the American Nurses Association using Survey Monkey. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent via email to a random sample of 20% of the ANA membership. Findings: A total of 1015 ANA members responded to the electronic survey. Respondents\u27 ages ranged from 21 to 79 years with a mean of 51.2 years. Nearly 56% of respondents held master\u27s degrees or higher; 44% had a baccalaureate or less advanced degree. About 3/8 of the respondents were staff nurses. Nearly 1/4 was nurse educators. Only 544 (53.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that EBP is consistently implemented in their healthcare setting and only 350 (34.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that their colleagues consistently implement EBP with their patients. Furthermore, only 329 (32.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that EBP mentors were available in their healthcare systems to help them with EBP and only 471 (46.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that findings from research studies are routinely implemented to improve patient outcomes in their institution. Seven hundred seventy three respondents (76.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that it was important for them to receive more education and skills building in EBP. Conclusions: Findings from this survey indicate that there is an urgent need to continue to accelerate efforts to enhance and sustain EBP knowledge and skills in nurses across the U.S

What is the evidence for the effectiveness, appropriateness and feasibility of group clinics for patients with chronic conditions? A systematic review

Background Group clinics are a form of delivering specialist-led care in groups rather than in individual consultations. Objective To examine the evidence for the use of group clinics for patients with chronic health conditions. Design A systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) supplemented by qualitative studies, cost studies and UK initiatives. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1999 to 2014. Systematic reviews and RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Additional searches were performed to identify qualitative studies, studies reporting costs and evidence specific to UK settings. Review methods Data were extracted for all included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies using a standardised form. Quality assessment was performed for systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies. UK studies were included regardless of the quality or level of reporting. Tabulation of the extracted data informed a narrative synthesis. We did not attempt to synthesise quantitative data through formal meta-analysis. However, given the predominance of studies of group clinics for diabetes, using common biomedical outcomes, this subset was subject to quantitative analysis. Results Thirteen systematic reviews and 22 RCT studies met the inclusion criteria. These were supplemented by 12 qualitative papers (10 studies), four surveys and eight papers examining costs. Thirteen papers reported on 12 UK initiatives. With 82 papers covering 69 different studies, this constituted the most comprehensive coverage of the evidence base to date. Disease-specific outcomes – the large majority of RCTs examined group clinic approaches to diabetes. Other conditions included hypertension/heart failure and neuromuscular conditions. The most commonly measured outcomes for diabetes were glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol. Group clinic approaches improved HbA1c and improved systolic blood pressure but did not improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A significant effect was found for disease-specific quality of life in a few studies. No other outcome measure showed a consistent effect in favour of group clinics. Recent RCTs largely confirm previous findings. Health services outcomes – the evidence on costs and feasibility was equivocal. No rigorous evaluation of group clinics has been conducted in a UK setting. A good-quality qualitative study from the UK highlighted factors such as the physical space and a flexible appointment system as being important to patients. The views and attitudes of those who dislike group clinic provision are poorly represented. Little attention has been directed at the needs of people from ethnic minorities. The review team identified significant weaknesses in the included research. Potential selection bias limits the generalisability of the results. Many patients who could potentially be included do not consent to the group approach. Attendance is often interpreted liberally. Limitations This telescoped review, conducted within half the time period of a conventional systematic review, sought breadth in covering feasibility, appropriateness and meaningfulness in addition to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and utilised several rapid-review methods. It focused on the contribution of recently published evidence from RCTs to the existing evidence base. It did not reanalyse trials covered in previous reviews. Following rapid review methods, we did not perform independent double data extraction and quality assessment. Conclusions Although there is consistent and promising evidence for an effect of group clinics for some biomedical measures, this effect does not extend across all outcomes. Much of the evidence was derived from the USA. It is important to engage with UK stakeholders to identify NHS considerations relating to the implementation of group clinic approaches. Future work The review team identified three research priorities: (1) more UK-centred evaluations using rigorous research designs and economic models with robust components; (2) clearer delineation of individual components within different models of group clinic delivery; and (3) clarification of the circumstances under which group clinics present an appropriate alternative to an individual consultation

Patient participation in nursing bedside handover: a systematic mixed-methods review

Background: Numerous reviews of nursing handover have been undertaken, but none have focused on the patients’ role. Objectives: To explore how patient participation in nursing shift-to-shift bedside handover can be enacted. Design: Systematic mixed-methods review. Data sources: Three search strategies were undertaken in July-August 2016: database searching, backwards citation searching and forward citation searching. To be included, papers had to either be research or quality improvement (QI) projects focusing on the patient role. Fifty-four articles were retrieved, including 21 studies and 25 QI projects. Review methods: Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken systematically by two reviewers. Research studies and QI projects were synthesised separately using thematic synthesis, then the results of this synthesis were combined using a mixed-method synthesis table. Results: Segregated synthesis of research of patients’ perceptions revealed two contrasting categories; (1) patient-centred handover and (2) nurse-centred handover. Segregated synthesis of research of nurses’ perceptions included three categories: (1) viewing the patient as an information resource; (2) dealing with confidential and sensitive information; and (3) enabling patient participation. The segregated synthesis of QI projects included two categories: (1) nurse barrier to enacting patient participation in bedside handover; and (2) involving patients in beside handover. Once segregated findings were configured, we discovered that the patients’ role in bedside handover involves contributing clinical information related to their care or progress, which may affect patient safety. Barriers relate to nurses’ concerns for the consequences of encouraging patient participation, worries for sharing confidential and sensitive information and feeling hesitant in changing their handover methods. The way nurses approach patients, and how patient-centred they are, constitute further potential barriers. Strategies to improve patient participation in handover include training nurses, making handovers predictable for patients and involving both patients and nurses throughout the change process. Conclusions: Using research and QI projects allowed diverse findings to expand each other and identify gaps between research and heuristic knowledge. Our review showed the tension between standardising handovers and making them predictable for patient participation, while promoting tailored and flexible handovers. Further investigation of this issue is required, to understand how to train nurses and ensure patients’ viewpoint is captured. Many barriers and strategies identified QI projects were from the nurse perspective, thus caution interpreting results is required. We recommend steps be taken in the future to ensure improved quality of QI projects

Knowledge translation to fitness trainers: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study investigates approaches for translating evidence-based knowledge for use by fitness trainers. Specific questions were: Where do fitness trainers get their evidence-based information? What types of interventions are effective for translating evidence-based knowledge for use by fitness trainers? What are the barriers and facilitators to the use of evidence-based information by fitness trainers in their practice?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We describe a systematic review of studies about knowledge translation interventions targeting fitness trainers. Fitness trainers were defined as individuals who provide exercise program design and supervision services to the public. Nurses, physicians, physiotherapists, school teachers, athletic trainers, and sport team strength coaches were excluded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 634 citations, two studies were eligible for inclusion: a survey of 325 registered health fitness professionals (66% response rate) and a qualitative study of 10 fitness instructors. Both studies identified that fitness trainers obtain information from textbooks, networking with colleagues, scientific journals, seminars, and mass media. Fitness trainers holding higher levels of education are reported to use evidence-based information sources such as scientific journals compared to those with lower education levels, who were reported to use mass media sources. The studies identified did not evaluate interventions to translate evidence-based knowledge for fitness trainers and did not explore factors influencing uptake of evidence in their practice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Little is known about how fitness trainers obtain and incorporate new evidence-based knowledge into their practice. Further exploration and specific research is needed to better understand how emerging health-fitness evidence can be translated to maximize its use by fitness trainers providing services to the general public.</p

Reflections [Complete issue : Second Quarter 2002]

Publishing History: Print issues of Reflections magazine were published from 1975 to 1999 and its successor, Reflections on Nursing Leadership (RNL) began publication in 2000. RNL migrated to an online format, http://www.reflectionsonnursingleadership.org, in 2006 and continues today. RNL is a member benefit of the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International (STTI). The historical print issues have been made openly available. Publishing Frequency: Quarterly until its transition to online. It’s now updated virtually every day. Format: Print, 1975 - 2005; Online, 2006 - present Feature Articles in this Issue: Undergird your EBP Curriculum with Undergrad Research Assistants Beauty from Brokenness How to Implement Evidence-based Practice Putting Research into Practice Evidence-based Practice: An Administrative Perspective Evidence-based Nursing: Perspective from Pakistan Evidence-based Practice: A Modern UK Phenomenon This issue of Reflections is fifty-four pages in length and contains information of interest to STTI members

Missing and accounted for: gaps and areas of wealth in the public health review literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High-quality review evidence is useful for informing and influencing public health policy and practice decisions. However, certain topic areas lack representation in terms of the quantity and quality of review literature available. The objectives of this paper are to identify the quantity, as well as quality, of review-level evidence available on the effectiveness of public health interventions for public health decision makers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Searches conducted on <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> produced an inventory of public health review literature in 21 topic areas. Gaps and areas of wealth in the review literature, as well as the proportion of reviews rated methodologically strong, moderate, or weak were identified. The top 10 topic areas of interest for registered users and visitors of <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> were extracted from user profile data and Google Analytics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Registered users' top three interests included: 1) healthy communities, 2) chronic diseases, and 3) nutrition. The top three preferences for visitors included: 1) chronic diseases, 2) physical activity, and 3) addiction/substance use. All of the topic areas with many (301+) available reviews were of interest to registered users and/or visitors (mental health, physical activity, addiction/substance use, adolescent health, child health, nutrition, adult health, and chronic diseases). Conversely, the majority of registered users and/or visitors did not have preference for topic areas with few (≤ 150) available reviews (food safety and inspection, dental health, environmental health) with the exception of social determinants of health and healthy communities. Across registered users' and visitors' topic areas of preference, 80.2% of the reviews were of well-done methodological quality, with 43.5% of reviews having a strong quality rating and 36.7% a moderate review quality rating.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In topic areas in which many reviews are available, higher level syntheses are needed to guide policy and practice. For other topic areas with few reviews, it is necessary to determine whether primary study evidence exists, or is needed, so that reviews can be conducted in the future. Considering that less than half of the reviews available on <url>http://www.health-evidence.ca</url> are of strong methodological quality, the quality of the review-level evidence needs to improve across the range of public health topic areas.</p

A knowledge management tool for public health: health-evidence.ca

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ultimate goal of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) activities is to facilitate incorporation of research knowledge into program and policy development decision making. Evidence-informed decision making involves translation of the best available evidence from a systematically collected, appraised, and analyzed body of knowledge. Knowledge management (KM) is emerging as a key factor contributing to the realization of evidence-informed public health decision making. The goal of health-evidence.ca is to promote evidence-informed public health decision making through facilitation of decision maker access to, retrieval, and use of the best available synthesized research evidence evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic reviews that populate health evidence.ca are identified through an extensive search (1985-present) of 7 electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, BIOSIS, and SportDiscus; handsearching of over 20 journals; and reference list searches of all relevant reviews. Reviews are assessed for relevance and quality by two independent reviewers. Commonly-used public health terms are used to assign key words to each review, and project staff members compose short summaries highlighting results and implications for policy and practice.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of June 2010, there are 1913 reviews in the health-evidence.ca registry in 21 public health and health promotion topic areas. Of these, 78% have been assessed as being of strong or moderate methodological quality. Health-evidence.ca receives approximately 35,000 visits per year, 20,596 of which are unique visitors, representing approximately 100 visits per day. Just under half of all visitors return to the site, with the average user spending six minutes and visiting seven pages per visit. Public health nurses, program managers, health promotion workers, researchers, and program coordinators are among the largest groups of registered users, followed by librarians, dieticians, medical officers of health, and nutritionists. The majority of users (67%) access the website from direct traffic (e.g., have the health-evidence.ca webpage bookmarked, or type it directly into their browser).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Consistent use of health-evidence.ca and particularly the searching for reviews that correspond with current public health priorities illustrates that health-evidence.ca may be playing an important role in achieving evidence-informed public health decision making.</p