Dataset Information

Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making: nurses' perceptions, knowledge, and barriers.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Evidence-based practice (EBP) provides nurses with a method to use critically appraised and scientifically proven evidence for delivering quality health care to a specific population. The objective of this study was to explore nurses' awareness of, knowledge of, and attitude toward EBP and factors likely to encourage or create barriers to adoption. In addition, information sources used by nurses and their literature searching skills were also investigated. METHOD: A total of 2,100 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to registered nurses in 2 public hospitals in Singapore, and 1,486 completed forms were returned, resulting in a response rate of 70.8%. RESULTS: More than 64% of the nurses expressed a positive attitude toward EBP. However, they pointed out that due to heavy workload, they cannot keep up to date with new evidence. Regarding self-efficacy of EBP-related abilities, the nurses perceived themselves to possess moderate levels of skills. The nurses also felt that EBP training, time availability, and mentoring by nurses with EBP experience would encourage them to implement EBP. The top three barriers to adopting EBP were lack of time, inability to understand statistical terms, and inadequate understanding of the jargon used in research articles. For literature searching, nurses were using basic search features and less than one-quarter of them were familiar with Boolean and proximity operators. CONCLUSION: Although nurses showed a positive attitude toward EBP, certain barriers were hindering their smooth adoption. It is, therefore, desirable that hospital management in Southeast Asia, particularly in Singapore, develop a comprehensive strategy for building EBP competencies through proper training. Moreover, hospital libraries should also play an active role in developing adequate information literacy skills among the nurses.

SUBMITTER: Majid S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3133901 | biostudies-other | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making: nurses' perceptions, knowledge, and barriers.

Majid Shaheen S Foo Schubert S Luyt Brendan B Zhang Xue X Theng Yin-Leng YL Chang Yun-Ke YK Mokhtar Intan A IA

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20110701 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Evidence-based practice (EBP) provides nurses with a method to use critically appraised and scientifically proven evidence for delivering quality health care to a specific population. The objective of this study was to explore nurses' awareness of, knowledge of, and attitude toward EBP and factors likely to encourage or create barriers to adoption. In addition, information sources used by nurses and their literature searching skills were also investigated.<h4>Method</h4>A total ...[more]

PMID: 21753915

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making is advocated because of its potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. However, current evidence suggests that shared decision-making has not yet been widely adopted by health professionals. Therefore, a systematic review was performed on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals.MethodsCovering the period from 1990 to March 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched for studies in English or French. The references from included studies also were consulted. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in their practices. Shared decision-making was defined as a joint process of decision making between health professionals and patients, or as decision support interventions including decision aids, or as the active participation of patients in decision making. No study design was excluded. Quality of the studies included was assessed independently by two of the authors. Using a pre-established taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines in practice, content analysis was performed.ResultsThirty-one publications covering 28 unique studies were included. Eleven studies were from the UK, eight from the USA, four from Canada, two from The Netherlands, and one from each of the following countries: France, Mexico, and Australia. Most of the studies used qualitative methods exclusively (18/28). Overall, the vast majority of participants (n = 2784) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (18/28), lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (12/28), and lack of applicability due to the clinical situation (12/28). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (15/28), positive impact on the clinical process (11/28), and positive impact on patient outcomes (10/28).ConclusionThis systematic review reveals that interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a broad range of factors. It also reveals that on this subject there is very little known about any health professionals others than physicians. Future studies about implementation of shared decision-making should target a more diverse group of health professionals.

Project description:BackgroundNurses are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making (EIDM); the use of research evidence with information about patient preferences, clinical context and resources, and their clinical expertise in decision making. Strategies for enhancing EIDM have been synthesized in high-quality systematic reviews, yet most relate to physicians or mixed disciplines. Existing reviews, specific to nursing, have not captured a broad range of strategies for promoting the knowledge and skills for EIDM, patient outcomes as a result of EIDM, or contextual information for why these strategies "work."AimTo conduct a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to strategies implemented among nurses in tertiary care for promoting EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours, as well as patient outcomes and contextual implementation details.MethodsA search strategy was developed and executed to identify relevant research evidence. Participants included registered nurses, clinical nurse specialists, nurse practitioners, and advanced practice nurses. Strategies were those enhancing nurses' EIDM knowledge, skills, or behaviours, as well as patient outcomes. Relevant studies included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials (including controlled before and after studies), cluster non-randomized trials, interrupted time series designs, prospective cohort studies, mixed-method studies, and qualitative studies. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using standardized forms. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or third party adjudication.ResultsUsing a narrative synthesis, the body of research was mapped by design, clinical areas, strategies, and provider and patient outcomes to determine areas appropriate for a systematic review.ConclusionsThere are a sufficiently high number of studies to conduct a more focused systematic review by care settings, study design, implementation strategies, or outcomes. A focused review could assist in determining which strategies can be recommended for enhancing EIDM knowledge, skills, and behaviours among nurses in tertiary care.

Project description:Background:Practice facilitation is a method of introducing and sustaining organizational change. It involves the use of skilled healthcare professionals called practice facilitators (PFs) to help address the challenges associated with implementing evidence-based guidelines and complex interventions into practice. PFs provide a framework for translating research into practice by building relationships, improving communication, fostering change, and sharing resources. Nurses are well positioned to serve as PFs for the implementation of complex interventions, however, there is little evidence currently available to describe nurses in this role. Additionally, the best strategies to implement complex interventions into practices are still not fully understood. Combining practice facilitation with the train-the-trainer model has the potential to spread knowledge and skills. Shared decision making (SDM), which involves patients and providers jointly engaging in decisions around treatment options, has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with asthma. The goal of this manuscript is to describe and evaluate the practice facilitation process from the ADAPT-NC Study which successfully utilized research nurses to implement a complex asthma SDM toolkit intervention into primary care practices. Methods:As part of a larger study, 10 primary care practices were recruited for a facilitator-led dissemination intervention involving a 12-week rollout of an asthma SDM toolkit (trial registration: 1.28.2014, #NCT02047929). An experienced lead PF trained research nurses as PFs from each of the 4 participating practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in a train-the-trainer model utilizing a one-day training event and subsequent remote meetings. Evaluation of PF engagement was measured through process improvement surveys. Results:Overall, the asthma SDM intervention was successfully implemented within the 4 PBRNs. All 10 facilitator-led practices remained engaged with their PFs, with 8 out of the 10 practices able to incorporate and sustain SDM visits or clinics. Responses from the surveys for process improvement yielded improved PF communication and team dynamics over time. Conclusions:This study demonstrated effective use of research nurses as practice facilitators during the dissemination of an asthma SDM intervention into primary care practices, adding to the knowledge of best practices by describing a model of large-scale implementation of a complex intervention through practice facilitation with nurses. Trial registration:"Comparing Traditional and Participatory Dissemination of a Shared Decision Making Intervention" was retrospectively registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ on January 28th, 2014 (NCT02047929).

Project description:BackgroundThe uptake and use of clinical guidelines is often insufficient to change clinical behaviour and reduce variation in practice. As a consequence of diverse organisational contexts, the simple provision of guidelines cannot ensure fidelity or guarantee their use when making decisions. Implementation research in surgery has focused on understanding what evidence exists for clinical practice decisions but limits understanding to the technical, educational and accessibility issues. This research aims to identify where, when and how evidence and knowledge are used in orthopaedic decision-making and how variation in these factors contributes to different approaches to implementation of clinical guidance in practice.MethodsWe used in-depth case studies to examine guideline implementation in real-life surgical practice. We conducted comparative case studies in three English National Health Service hospitals over a 12-month period. Each in-depth case study consisted of a mix of qualitative methods including interviews, observations and document analysis. Data included field notes from observations of day-to-day practice, 64 interviews with NHS surgeons and staff and the collection of 121 supplementary documents.ResultsCase studies identified 17 sources of knowledge and evidence which influenced clinical decisions in elective orthopaedic surgery. A comparative analysis across cases revealed that each hospital had distinct approaches to decision-making. Decision-making is described as occurring as a result of how 17 types of knowledge and evidence were privileged and of how they interacted and changed in context. Guideline implementation was contingent and mediated through four distinct contextual levels. Implementation could be assessed for individual surgeons, groups of surgeons or the organisation as a whole, but it could also differ between these levels. Differences in how evidence and knowledge were used contributed to variations in practice from guidelines.ConclusionA range of complex and competing sources of evidence and knowledge exists which influence the working practices of healthcare professionals. The dynamic selection, combination and use of each type of knowledge and evidence influence the implementation and use of clinical guidance in practice. Clinical guidelines are a fundamental part of practice, but represent only one type of evidence influencing clinical decisions. In the orthopaedic speciality, other distinct sources of evidence and knowledge are selected and used which impact on how guidelines are implemented. New approaches to guideline implementation need to appreciate and incorporate this diverse range of knowledge and evidence which influences clinical decisions and to take account of the changing contexts in which decisions are made.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed to identify clinical nurses' evidence-based practice (EBP) knowledge, beliefs, organizational readiness, and EBP implementation levels, and to determine the factors that affect EBP implementation in order to successfully establish EBP. This study was conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary hospital located in a provincial area in Korea. The research design was based on Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt's Advancing Research & Clinical Practice through Close Collaboration model as the first step. METHODS:A descriptive and cross-sectional design was conducted and a convenience sample of 521 full-time registered nurses from an 849-bed tertiary hospital were included. Structured questionnaires were used to assess EBP knowledge, EBP beliefs, organizational culture & readiness and EBP implementation. Data were analyzed using SPSS V 25.0 by using descriptive and inferential statistics and hierarchical multiple regression was performed to determine the factors affecting the implementation of EBP. RESULTS:Our findings showed that the clinical nurses had a positive level of EBP beliefs, but the level of EBP knowledge, organizational readiness and EBP implementation were insufficient. EBP knowledge, beliefs, and organizational readiness were significantly positively correlated with EBP implementation. In the final model, EBP knowledge and organizational readiness were significant predictors of EBP implementation; the model predicted 22.2% of the variance in implementation. CONCLUSIONS:Based on these results, the main focus of the study was the importance of individual nurses' efforts in carrying out EBP, but above all efforts to create an organizational culture to prepare and support EBP at the nursing organization level. In the initial process of introducing and establishing EBP, nurse administrators will need to minimize expected barriers, enhance facilitators, and strive to build an infrastructure based on vision, policy-making, budgeting, excellent personnel and facilities within the organization.

Dataset Information

Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making: nurses' perceptions, knowledge, and barriers.

Publications

Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making: nurses' perceptions, knowledge, and barriers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets