Evidence-based practice: Knowledge, attitudes, implementation, facilitators, and barriers among community nurses-systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study is to summarize the status of knowledge, attitudes, implementation, facilitators, and barriers of evidence-based practice (EBP) in community nurses (CNs). EBP has been widely adopted but the knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of EBP among CNs, and the facilitators and barriers they perceived have not been clearly confirmed.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using combined keywords in 3 English databases and 3 Chinese databases of peer-reviewed publications covering the dates of publication from 1996 to July, 2018. Twenty articles were included. The information of the knowledge, attitudes, implementation, and the perceived facilitators and barriers of EBP in CNs was extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

CNs had positive attitudes toward EBP, but insufficient knowledge and unprepared implementation. The most cited facilitators were academic training, management functions, and younger age. Inadequate time and resources were recognized as main barriers hindering the transforming from knowledge and attitudes to implementation. Developed interventions mainly focused on knowledge facilitation rather than the elimination of objective barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate a compelling need for improvement in knowledge and implementation of EBP in CNs, compared with the better attitudes. Except education, knowledge translating into implementation needs more coordination with authorities to magnify the facilitators and overcome the barriers. Further studies need to concentrate on deficient knowledge and implementation of EBP among CNs. Policy makers can use the facilitators and barriers found by this review to modify nursing education, current scientific resources supplement, practice supports for care improving.

Organizational culture and climate as moderators of enhanced outreach for persons with serious mental illness: results from a cluster-randomized trial of adaptive implementation strategies

Background

Organizational culture and climate are considered key factors in implementation efforts but have not been examined as moderators of implementation strategy comparative effectiveness. We investigated organizational culture and climate as moderators of comparative effectiveness of two sequences of implementation strategies (Immediate vs. Delayed Enhanced Replicating Effective Programs [REP]) combining Standard REP and REP enhanced with facilitation on implementation of an outreach program for Veterans with serious mental illness lost to care at Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities nationwide.

Methods

This study is a secondary analysis of the cluster-randomized Re-Engage implementation trial that assigned 3075 patients at 89 VA facilities to either the Immediate or Delayed Enhanced REP sequences. We hypothesized that sites with stronger entrepreneurial culture, task, or relational climate would benefit more from Enhanced REP than Standard REP. Veteran- and site-level data from the Re-Engage trial were combined with site-aggregated measures of entrepreneurial culture and task and relational climate from the 2012 VA All Employee Survey. Longitudinal mixed-effects logistic models examined whether the comparative effectiveness of the Immediate vs. Delayed Enhanced REP sequences were moderated by culture or climate measures at 6 and 12 months post-randomization. Three Veteran-level outcomes related to the engagement with the VA system were assessed: updated documentation, attempted contact by coordinator, and completed contact.

Results

For updated documentation and attempted contact, Veterans at sites with higher entrepreneurial culture and task climate scores benefitted more from Enhanced REP compared to Standard REP than Veterans at sites with lower scores. Few culture or climate moderation effects were detected for the comparative effectiveness of the full sequences of implementation strategies.

Conclusions

Implementation strategy effectiveness is highly intertwined with contextual factors, and implementation practitioners may use knowledge of contextual moderation to tailor strategy deployment. We found that facilitation strategies provided with Enhanced REP were more effective at improving uptake of a mental health outreach program at sites with stronger entrepreneurial culture and task climate; Veterans at sites with lower levels of these measures saw more similar improvement under Standard and Enhanced REP. Within resource-constrained systems, practitioners may choose to target more intensive implementation strategies to sites that will most benefit from them.

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN21059161. Date registered: April 11, 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0787-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing: a focused review of concept and meaning

BACKGROUND

Facilitation is proposed as an important strategy to assist practitioners to implement evidence into practice. However, from a front-line nursing perspective, what is actually involved in facilitation, particularly in regards to research utilization, is poorly understood.

AIM

To examine the current state of knowledge surrounding the concept of facilitation as a role and process in the implementation of research findings within the nursing context. Building on a previous concept analysis, we examined how facilitation has evolved over the last decade, particularly focusing on the practical elements (e.g., what it entails to operationalize and implement facilitation in nursing).

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases identified theory and research-based nursing papers explicitly focused on facilitation in research utilization. Through a content analysis, we examined how the concept is being used, described, and applied within nursing.

RESULTS

Facilitation continues to be described as supporting and enabling practitioners to improve practice through evidence implementation. Certain aspects of the role and the strategies being employed to promote change are more evident. It was possible to formulate these into a taxonomy. Key findings include: * facilitation is now being viewed as an individual role as well as a process involving individuals and groups; * project management/leadership are important components; * no matter which approach is selected, tailoring facilitation to the local context is critical; * there is a growing emphasis on evaluation, particularly linking outcomes to nursing actions.

CONCLUSIONS

Further understanding of what facilitators are actually doing to enable changes in nursing practice based on research findings will provide the groundwork for the design and evaluation of practical strategies for evidence-based practice in nursing. Research is needed to clarify how facilitation may be used to implement change in nursing practice along with evaluation of the effectiveness of various approaches.

The Quality Chasm reports, evidence-based practice, and nursing’s response to improve healthcare

In a growing set of landmark reports, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) set in motion a sweeping quality initiative for reform of the healthcare system. Many of the recommendations incorporate evidence-based practice applications. Key points from the primary IOM reports are brought together. In the keystone report, the IOM offers analysis of the current health system and provides a blue print for change. Subsequent reports in the same series advance the blueprint by providing exemplars of quality healthcare, identifying clinical priority targets for corrective action, and recommending changes in education of health professionals. This article explores the role of healthcare professionals, specifically nurses, in improving healthcare in context of these reports and discusses how evidence-based practice closes the chasm. Health professionals will be expected to make changes in practice and education. Crucial on the healthcare team, nurses are major players in the healthcare reformation that has been set into motion.

The implementation of venous leg ulcer guidelines: process analysis of the intervention used in a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial

The production and implementation of clinical practice guidelines is currently a high political priority and a rapidly developing field within healthcare in the United Kingdom (UK). Their purpose is to provide clinicians with a synthesis of the best available external evidence and operationalize the implementation of evidence-based practice. Despite indications that clinical guidelines can make a difference to the quality of patient care, there is some evidence that practitioners struggle with their application. The aim of this paper is to report one element of a trial undertaken by three collaborating universities in the Northern and Yorkshire Region of the UK health service during 1997-1998. The objective was to understand what makes guidelines acceptable and usable, or otherwise, to health professionals. The findings reported in this paper describe the process of care in those general practices that elected to implement guidelines for the management of patients with venous leg ulcers. We conclude that planning for training, resource and quality improvement processes must be built into a team's guidelines implementation procedures. A preliminary needs analysis of the contextual 'hurdles and levers' within each primary healthcare team is also necessary to identify individual issues that must be addressed if the process is to succeed. These findings provide some lessons for successful implementation of clinical guidelines in general. Recommendations for nursing policy makers, managers, practitioners and researchers are included.

Developing a framework for primary palliative care services

Practice and empirical data indicate concerns regarding the delivery of primary palliative care, particularly the provision of a multidisciplinary approach. A collaborative study was undertaken between an academic unit and primary care practice to evaluate current care provision and explore methods of developing services. A two-phase study was carried out over a period of 18 months using an action research approach, in order to facilitate concurrent service evaluation, change in practice, and the involvement of professionals in research and practice development. The first phase highlighted the need to enhance primary palliative care services; a number of practice changes were identified and implemented during the second phase and evaluated using quantitative and qualitative methods. Data demonstrated the enhancement of services, benefits to patient care and professional working and the viability of an innovative model of palliative care delivery - that of a surgery-based clinic for palliative care patients and carers. A framework for the provision of multidisciplinary palliative care in the community was developed.

Evidence-based practice in primary care: past, present and future

As in other health care specialities, evidence-based practice is beginning to have an impact on the philosophy and workings of primary care. Some practising clinicians, however, may wish to question its relevance to their everyday work, and whether general practitioners and other members of the primary health care team can realistically adopt a new approach to clinical decision making, at a time of such high workload and competing priorities. Major changes have taken place during the last 20 years as a result of the National Health Service (NHS) reforms, the development of general practice and primary care research, and other health service innovations such as the introduction of new technologies, which have had an important impact on primary care. Issues such as the availability and use of different research methods, the role of experts, and the development of guidelines, audit and evaluation of care, are becoming subject to renewed scrutiny. Within this context, this article explores the potential of an evidence-based approach in the primary care setting, and discusses possible strategies for change to assist the dissemination of research into practice and the implementation of evidence-based health care.