Florida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion

Florida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion

Florida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion

Question Description

Help me study for my Health & Medical class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

1. Describe the importance of evidence-based practice.

2.  Describe how and where to search for evidence.

3.  Describe strategies for the implementation of evidenced-based practice in nursing practice.

Florida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion
Florida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Florida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion

Chapter 10 Evidence-Based Professional Nursing Practice Evidence-Based Practice: What Is It? • Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a framework used by nurses and other healthcare professionals to deliver optimal health care through the integration of best current evidence, clinical expertise, and patient/family values Why Is EBP Relevant in Nursing? (1 of 2) • Helps resolve problems in the clinical setting • Results in effective patient care and better outcomes • Contributes to the science of nursing through the introduction of innovation to practice • Keeps practice current and relevant by helping nurses deliver care based upon current best research Why Is EBP Relevant in Nursing? (2 of 2) • Decreases variations in nursing care and increases confidence in decision making • Supports Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)readiness since policies and procedures are current and include the latest research • Supports high quality patient care and achievement of Magnet status Steps in the EBP Process (1 of 2) • Cultivate a spirit of inquiry and culture of EBP among nurses and within the organization • Identify an issue and ask the question • Search for and collect the most relevant and best evidence to answer the clinical question Steps in the EBP Process (2 of 2) • Critically appraise the evidence and synthesize the evidence • Integrate evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences to make the best clinical decision • Evaluate the outcome of any EBP change • Disseminate the outcomes of the change Barriers to EBP in Nursing (1 of 3) • Lack of value for research in practice • Difficulty in changing practice • Lack of administrative support • Lack of knowledgeable mentors • Insufficient time • Lack of education about the research process • Lack of awareness about research or EBP Barriers to EBP in Nursing (2 of 3) • Research reports/articles not readily available • Difficulty accessing research reports and articles • No time on the job to read research • Complexity of research reports • Lack of knowledge about EBP • Lack of knowledge about the critique of articles Barriers to EBP in Nursing (3 of 3) • Feeling overwhelmed by the process • Lack of sense of control over practice • Lack of confidence to implement change • Lack of leadership, motivation, vision, strategy, or direction among managers Promoting EBP: Individual Nurse • Educate yourself about EBP • Conduct face-to-face or online journal clubs, share new research reports and guidelines with peers, and provide support to other nurses • Share your results through posters, newsletters, unit meetings, or a published article • Adopt a reflective and inquiring approach to practice Strategies to Promote EBP: Organizations • Specific identification of the facilitators and barriers to EBP • Education and training to improve knowledge and strengthen beliefs related to the benefits of EBP • Creation of an environment that encourages an inquisitive approach to patient care PICO(T) • P: Patient, population, or problem • I: Intervention, exposure, or topic of interest • C: Comparison or alternate intervention • O: Outcome • (T): Time or timeframe PICO(T) Questions • In (patient or population), what is the effect of (intervention or exposure) on (outcome) compared with (comparison or alternate intervention)? • For (patient or population), does the introduction of (intervention or exposure) reduce the risk of (outcome) compared with (comparison or alternate intervention)? Electronic Resources • National Library of Medicine • Cochrane Library • National Guideline Clearinghouse • Joanna Briggs Institute • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality • Centre for Health Evidence • Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario Evaluation of Evidence • What is the source of the information? • When was it developed? • How was it developed? • Does it fit the current clinical environment? • Does it fit the current situation? Levels of Evidence • Meta-analysis or systematic reviews of multiple welldesigned controlled studies • Well-designed randomized controlled trials • Well-designed nonrandomized controlled trials • Observational studies with controls • Systematic review of descriptive and qualitative studies • Single descriptive or qualitative study • Opinions of authorities and/or reports of expert committees Appraisal of Research Using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) • Checklists provide tools to interpret research evidence • Checklists are specific to types of research • Checklists provide frameworks to determine strength and reliability of research reports Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards for Clinical Practice Guideline Development • STANDARD 1: Establishing • STANDARD 2: Management of conflict of interest • STANDARD 3: Guideline development group composition • STANDARD 4: Use of systematic reviews • STANDARD 5: Establishing evidence and strength of recommendations • STANDARD 6: Articulation of recommendations • STANDARD 7: External review • STANDARD 8: Updating Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) • Scope and purpose • Stakeholder involvement • Rigor of development • Clarity and presentation • Application • Editorial independence AGREE II Category #1 • Scope and purpose – Overall objectives of the guideline are specifically described – The health questions covered by the guideline are specifically described – The population to whom the guideline is meant to apply are specifically described AGREE II Category #2 • Stakeholder involvement – Guideline development group includes individuals from all relevant professions – The views and preferences of the target population have been sought – Target users of the guideline are clearly defined AGREE II Category #3 (1 of 2) • Rigor of development – Systematic methods were used to search for evidence – The criteria for selecting the evidence are clearly described – The strengths and limitations of the body of evidence are clearly described – The methods used for formulating the recommendations are clearly described AGREE II Category #3 (2 of 2) • Rigor of development (cont.) – The health benefits, side effects, and risks have been considered in formulating recommendations – There is an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence – The guideline has been externally reviewed by experts prior to publication – A procedure for updating the guideline is provided AGREE II Category #4 • Clarity and presentation – Recommendations are specific and unambiguous – Different options for management of the condition or health issue are clearly presented – Key recommendations are easily identifiable AGREE II Category #5 • Application – The guideline describes facilitators and barriers to its application – The guideline provides advice and/or tools on how the recommendations can be put into practice – The potential resource implications of applying the recommendations have been considered – Guideline presents monitoring and/or auditing criteria AGREE II Category #6 • Editorial independence – The views of the funding body have not influenced the content of the guideline – Competing interests of guideline development group members have been recorded and addressed Implementation Models for EBP • Center for Advancing Clinical Evidence (ACE) Star Model of Knowledge Transformation • The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Model • Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model • Diffusion of InnovationFlorida National University Importance of Evidence Based Practice Discussion Framework

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Postinga 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100