scholarly journals Building capacity among health care librarians to teach evidence-based practice—an evaluation

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail Sabey ◽  
Michele Biddle
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Short Course ◽  
Funding Scheme ◽  
The Impact

Objective: An innovative funding scheme for health care librarians to attend an intensive short course in teaching evidence-based practice was established in the West of England in 2016. This evaluation aims to understand the value of the scheme and the impact of the training opportunity for the librarians, establish an evidence base for continuing with the funding scheme, and inform the development of plans to build additional capacity among health care librarians to provide critical appraisal training.Methods: Seven librarians working in health care system settings were funded by the scheme between 2016 and 2018. Post-course feedback forms gathered initial views on course content and delivery, which informed the development of questions for the qualitative phase of the evaluation. All seven librarians participated in group discussions and individual interviews.Results: The course boosted confidence, provided valuable new skills, and positively impacted careers of the librarians through access to new opportunities. It inspired the development of new approaches to critical appraisal training. An important need was identified among the librarians for more education in teaching. Librarians funded by the scheme have successfully cascaded the training to their colleagues.Conclusion: This evaluation supports the continuation of the funding scheme to further build capacity among health care librarians to teach evidence-based practice. It suggests additional investment in this type of specialist training, as well as in education in teaching skills, would be beneficial for health care librarians. Evidence from this evaluation is informing new plans to support these professionals with the vital service they provide, which contributes to the evidence-based culture of their organizations and to patient outcomes.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management, Part I: Introduction and General Considerations

2008 ◽  
Vol 2;11 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 161-186
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines are part of modern interventional pain management. As in other specialties in the United States, evidence-based medicine appears to motivate the search for answers to numerous questions related to costs and quality of health care as well as access to care. Scientific, relevant evidence is essential in clinical care, policy-making, dispute resolution, and law. Consequently, evidence based practice brings together pertinent, trustworthy information by systematically acquiring, analyzing, and transferring research findings into clinical, management, and policy arenas. In the United States, researchers, clinicians, professional organizations, and government are looking for a sensible approach to health care with practical evidence-based medicine. All modes of evidence-based practice, either in the form of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, or guidelines, evolve through a methodological, rational accumulation, analysis, and understanding of the evidentiary knowledge that can be applied in clinical settings. Historically, evidence-based medicine is traceable to the 1700s, even though it was not explicitly defined and advanced until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Evidence-based medicine was initially called “critical appraisal” to describe the application of basic rules of evidence as they evolve into application in daily practices. Evidence-based medicine is defined as a conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Evidence-based practice is defined based on 4 basic and important contingencies, which include recognition of the patient’s problem and construction of a structured clinical question, thorough search of medical literature to retrieve the best available evidence to answer the question, critical appraisal of all available evidence, and integration of the evidence with all aspects and contexts of the clinical circumstances. Systematic reviews provide the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic. While systematic reviews are close to meta-analysis, they are vastly different from narrative reviews and health technology assessments. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that aim to help physicians and patients reach the best health care decisions. Appropriately developed guidelines incorporate validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical applicability and flexibility, clarity, development through a multidisciplinary process, scheduled reviews, and documentation. Thus, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines represent statements developed to improve the quality of care, patient access, treatment outcomes, appropriateness of care, efficiency and effectiveness and achieve cost containment by improving the cost benefit ratio. Part 1 of this series in evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management provides an introduction and general considerations of these 3 aspects in interventional pain management. Key words: Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, narrative reviews, health technology assessments, grading of evidence, recommendations, grading systems, strength of evidence.

scholarly journals Older and Wiser? The Need to Reexamine the Impact of Health Professionals Age and Experience on Competency-Based Practices

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 237796082110290
Author(s):  
Jing Xu ◽  
Kristen Hicks-Roof ◽  
Chloe E. Bailey ◽  
Hanadi Y. Hamadi
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact

Introduction Delivery of healthcare services makes up a complex system and it requires providers to be competent and to be able to integrate each of the institute of medicine’s (IOM) 5 core competencies into practice. However, healthcare providers are challenged with the task to be able to understand and apply the IOM core competencies into practice. Objective The purpose of the study was to examine the factors that influence health professional’s likelihood of accomplishing the IOM core competencies. Methods A cross-sectional study design was used to administer a validated online survey to health providers. This survey was distributed to physicians, nursing professionals, specialists, and allied healthcare professionals. The final sample included 3,940 participants who completed the survey. Results The study findings show that younger health professionals more consistently practice daily competencies than their older counterparts, especially in the use of evidence-based practice, informatics, and working in interdisciplinary teams. Less experienced health professionals more consistently applied quality improvement methods but less consistently used evidence-based practice compared to their more experienced counterparts. Conclusion There is a need to understand how health professionals’ age and experience impact their engagement with IOM’s core competencies. This study highlights the need for educational resources on the competencies to be tailored to health providers’ age and experience.

scholarly journals Building capacity for implementation—the KT Challenge

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes T. Black ◽  
Marla Steinberg ◽  
Amanda E. Chisholm ◽  
Kristi Coldwell ◽  
Alison M. Hoens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Practice Change ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Health Care Settings ◽  
Improvement Programs ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The KT Challenge program supports health care professionals to effectively implement evidence-based practices. Unlike other knowledge translation (KT) programs, this program is grounded in capacity building, focuses on health care professionals (HCPs), and uses a multi-component intervention. This study presents the evaluation of the KT Challenge program to assess the impact on uptake, KT capacity, and practice change. Methods The evaluation used a mixed-methods retrospective pre-post design involving surveys and review of documents such as teams’ final reports. Online surveys collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were deployed at four time points (after both workshops, 6 months into implementation, and at the end of the 2-year funded projects) to measure KT capacity (knowledge, skills, and confidence) and impact on practice change. Qualitative data was analyzed using a general inductive approach and quantitative data was analyzed using non-parametric statistics. Results Participants reported statistically significant increases in knowledge and confidence across both workshops, at the 6-month mark of their projects, and at the end of their projects. In addition, at the 6-month check-in, practitioners reported statistically significant improvements in their ability to implement practice changes. In the first cohort of the program, of the teams who were able to complete their projects, half were able to show demonstrable practice changes. Conclusions The KT Challenge was successful in improving the capacity of HCPs to implement evidence-based practice changes and has begun to show demonstrable improvements in a number of practice areas. The program is relevant to a variety of HCPs working in diverse practice settings and is relatively inexpensive to implement. Like all practice improvement programs in health care settings, a number of challenges emerged stemming from the high turnover of staff and the limited capacity of some practitioners to take on anything beyond direct patient care. Efforts to address these challenges have been added to subsequent cohorts of the program and ongoing evaluation will examine if they are successful. The KT Challenge program has continued to garner great interest among practitioners, even in the midst of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and shows promise for organizations looking for better ways to mobilize knowledge to improve patient care and empower staff. This study contributes to the implementation science literature by providing a description and evaluation of a new model for embedding KT practice skills in health care settings.

Psychometric Testing of the Health Care Evidence-Based Practice Assessment Tool

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 485-498
Author(s):  
Martha R. Sleutel ◽  
Celestina Barbosa-Leiker ◽  
Marian Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Psychometric Testing ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Health Care Outcomes ◽  
Optimal Health

Background and Purpose: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is essential to optimal health care outcomes. Interventions to improve use of evidence depend on accurate assessments from reliable, valid, and user-friendly tools. This study reports psychometric analyses from a modified version of a widely used EBP questionnaire, the information literacy for nursing practice (ILNP). Methods: After content validity assessments by nurse researchers, a convenience sam ple of 2,439 nurses completed the revised 23-item questionnaire. We examined internal consistency and used factor analyses to assess the factor structure. Results: A modified 4-factor model demonstrated adequate fit to the data. Cronbach’s alpha was .80–.92 for the subscales. Conclusions: The shortened ILNP (renamed Healthcare EBP Assessment Tool or HEAT) demonstrated adequate content validity, construct validity, and reliability.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 402-405
Author(s):  
Susan Givens Bell
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Appraisal Process ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
The Third

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the first in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, defines and provides examples of the levels of evidence and tools to begin the appraisal process using a rapid critical appraisal technique.

scholarly journals Evidence-based practice of stereotactic radiosurgery: Outcomes from an educational course for neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Swathi Chidambaram ◽  
Sergio W. Guadix ◽  
John Kwon ◽  
Justin Tang ◽  
Amanda Rivera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Stereotactic Radiosurgery ◽  
Radiation Oncology ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Before And After

Background: As the field of brain and spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) continues to grow, so will the need for a comprehensive evidence base. However, it is unclear to what degree trainees feel properly equipped to use SRS. We assess the perceptions and comfort level reported by neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents concerning the evidence-based practice of SRS. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME) course provided peer-reviewed updates regarding treatment with intracranial and spinal SRS. Presentations were given by neurosurgery and radiation oncology residents with mentorship by senior faculty. To gauge perceptions regarding SRS, attendees were surveyed. Responses before and after the course were analyzed using the Fisher’s exact test in R statistical software. Results: Participants reported the greatest knowledge improvements concerning data registries (P < 0.001) and clinical trials (P = 0.026). About 82% of all (n = 17) radiation oncology and neurosurgery residents either agreed or strongly agreed that a brain and spine SRS rotation would be beneficial in their training. However, only 47% agreed or strongly agreed that one was currently part of their training. In addition, knowledge gains in SRS indications (P = 0.084) and ability to seek collaboration with colleagues (P = 0.084) showed notable trends. Conclusion: There are clear knowledge gaps shared by potential future practitioners of SRS. Specifically, knowledge regarding SRS data registries, indications, and clinical trials offer potential areas for increased educational focus. Furthermore, the gap between enthusiasm for increased SRS training and the current availability of such training at medical institutions must be addressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document