IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i1-2p57-68.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic implementation of evidence‐based practice in a clinical nursing setting: a participatory action research project

Author

Listed:
  • Jolanda HHM Friesen‐Storms
  • Albine Moser
  • Sandra van der Loo
  • Anna JHM Beurskens
  • Gerrie JJW Bours

Abstract

Aims and objectives To describe the process of implementing evidence‐based practice in a clinical nursing setting. Background Evidence‐based practice has become a major issue in nursing, it is insufficiently integrated into daily practice and its implementation is complex. Design Participatory action research. Methods The main participants were nurses working in a lung unit of a rural hospital. A multi‐method process of data collection was used during the observing, reflecting, planning and acting phases. Data were continuously gathered during a 24‐month period from 2010 to 2012, and analysed using an interpretive constant comparative approach. Patients were consulted to incorporate their perspective. Results A best‐practice mode of working was prevalent on the ward. The main barriers to the implementation of evidence‐based practice were that nurses had little knowledge of evidence‐based practice and a rather negative attitude towards it, and that their English reading proficiency was poor. The main facilitators were that nurses wanted to deliver high‐quality care and were enthusiastic and open to innovation. Implementation strategies included a tailored interactive outreach training and the development and implementation of an evidence‐based discharge protocol. The academic model of evidence‐based practice was adapted. Nurses worked according to the evidence‐based practice discharge protocol but barely recorded their activities. Nurses favourably evaluated the participatory action research process. Conclusions Action research provides an opportunity to empower nurses and to tailor evidence‐based practice to the practice context. Applying and implementing evidence‐based practice is difficult for front‐line nurses with limited evidence‐based practice competencies. Relevance to clinical practice Adaptation of the academic model of evidence‐based practice to a more pragmatic approach seems necessary to introduce evidence‐based practice into clinical practice. The use of scientific evidence can be facilitated by using pre‐appraised evidence. For clinical practice, it seems relevant to integrate scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient values in nurses' clinical decision‐making at the individual patient level.

Suggested Citation

  • Jolanda HHM Friesen‐Storms & Albine Moser & Sandra van der Loo & Anna JHM Beurskens & Gerrie JJW Bours, 2015. "Systematic implementation of evidence‐based practice in a clinical nursing setting: a participatory action research project," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1-2), pages 57-68, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:1-2:p:57-68
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12697
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12697?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filipa Pereira & Victoria Pellaux & Henk Verloo, 2018. "Beliefs and implementation of evidence‐based practice among community health nurses: A cross‐sectional descriptive study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(9-10), pages 2052-2061, May.
    2. Henk Verloo & Mario Desmedt & Diane Morin, 2017. "Adaptation and validation of the Evidence‐Based Practice Belief and Implementation scales for French‐speaking Swiss nurses and allied healthcare providers," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(17-18), pages 2735-2743, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:1-2:p:57-68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.