Supporting Evidence‐Based Practice for Students on Placement: Making Management Decisions for Clients with down Syndrome

Author(s):  
Ruth Miller
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Urquhart ◽  
Anne Brice ◽  
Janet Cooper ◽  
Siân Spink ◽  
Rhian Thomas

Objective – The aim of this paper is to examine how virtual community of practice principles might be used by information professionals with emphasis on the work of the Specialist Libraries for health professionals in England, UK. An evaluation conducted in 2004-2005 examined the operation of the Specialist Libraries, which the National Library for Health had contracted out to various organisations, and assessed their stage of development as communities of practice. Methods – Evaluation methods included observation of a meeting of information specialists, interviews with clinical leads and information specialists, and evaluation of the content and format of the Specialist Library websites. The evaluation framework was based on a systematic review of the literature to determine the critical success factors for communities of practice and their role in supporting evidence based practice. An updated literature review was conducted for this paper. Results – Operational structures varied but were mostly effective in producing communities of practice that were at an “engaged” stage. Some Specialist Libraries wished to move towards the “active” stage by supporting online discussion forums, or by providing question and answering services or more learning activities and materials. Although the evidence from the literature suggests there are few clear criteria for judging the effectiveness of communities of practice, the evaluation framework used here was successful in identifying the state of progress and how information professionals might approach designing virtual communities of practice. Conclusions – Structuring library and information services around community of practice principles is effective. Careful and participative design of the information architecture is required for good support for evidence based practice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Trembath ◽  
Rhylee Sulek ◽  
Jessica Paynter ◽  
Kate Simpson ◽  
Deb Keen

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1008.2-1008
Author(s):  
M. Lee ◽  
G. Reynolds ◽  
M. Yates ◽  
J. Galloway

Background:Clinical practice guidelines are designed to ensure that patients are treated according to best evidence, with the goal of optimizing clinical outcomes and reducing unwarranted variation in care. They compile, rate and translate the data available into recommendations that form the basis of evidence-based practice for most clinicians. Despite their importance, the evidence base informing different guidelines varies in quality. A recent study of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Practice Guidelines demonstrated only 17 of 35 class I (strong benefit to harm ratio) recommendations were supported by level A evidence (high quality randomized controlled trails or meta-analyses)1.Objectives:To review the evidence supporting the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) guidelines.Methods:Thirteen sets of guidelines that were available on the BSR website as of October 16th 2019 were reviewed (https://www.rheumatology.org.uk/practice-quality/guidelines). A range of methodologies (including Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), EULAR and Royal College of Physicians (RCP) recommendations) were used to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. For comparability between guidelines the level of evidence was converted to a score between I (highest quality) and IV (lowest quality) and the strength of recommendation was converted to a rating between A and D. The polymyalgia rheumatica guideline was not assessed due to unclear methodology and lack of level of evidence for all recommendations.Results:Of the 12 BSR guidelines assessed, there were 554 recommendations in total. The number of recommendations per guideline ranged between 13 and 80. Across all assessed guidelines, 94 recommendations (17.0%) were classified as level I, 161 (29.1%) as level 2 and 299 (54.0%) as level 3 or 4. These figures are similar to those reported in the ACR guidelines (23%, 19% and 58% respectively)1. The proportion of level I evidence varied from 46.2% (Axial Spondyloarthropathy guideline) to 0% (Hot Swollen Joint guideline).Conclusion:Over half of all BSR guideline recommendations have level of supporting evidence of III/IV. A wide range of methodologies are used to generate BSR guidelines (GRADE, SIGN, RCP / EULAR). This makes it challenging for readers unfamiliar with these approaches to interpret evidence and hinders comparisons between guidelines. A standardized methodology for future guideline development would overcome these barriers.References:[1]Duarte-Garcia A, Zamore R & Wong JB. The Evidence Basis for the American College of Rheumatology Practice Guidelines. JAMA Intern Med, 2018 Jan 1;178(1):146-148.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane M. Doran ◽  
R. Brian Haynes ◽  
André Kushniruk ◽  
Sharon Straus ◽  
Jeremy Grimshaw ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document