Margaret B. Harrison

Effectiveness of simulation on health profession students' knowledge, skills, confidence and satisfaction.

UNLABELLED Background  Despite the recent wave of interest being shown in high-fidelity simulators, they do not represent a new concept in healthcare education. Simulators have been a part of clinical education since the 1950s. The growth of patient simulation as a core educational tool has been driven by a number of factors. Declining inpatient populations, concerns for patient safety and advances in learning theory are forcing healthcare educators to look for alternatives to the traditional clinical encounter for skill acquisition for students. Objective  The aim of this review was to identify the best available evidence on the effectiveness of using simulated learning experiences in pre-licensure health profession education. Inclusion criteria  Types of studies: This review considered any experimental or quasi-experimental studies that addressed the effectiveness of using simulated learning experiences in pre-licensure health profession practice. In the absence of randomised controlled trials, other research designs were considered for inclusion, such as, but not limited to: non-randomised controlled trials and before-and-after studies. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS This review included participants who were pre-licensure practitioners in nursing, medicine, and rehabilitation therapy. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest: Studies that evaluated the use of human physical anatomical models with or without computer support, including whole-body or part-body simulators were included. Types of outcome measures  Student outcomes included knowledge acquisition, skill performance, learner satisfaction, critical thinking, self-confidence and role identity. Search strategy  Using a defined search and retrieval method, the following databases were accessed for the period 1995-2006: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, HealthSTAR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and ERIC. Methodological quality  Each paper was assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological quality prior to inclusion in the review using the standardised critical appraisal instruments for evidence of effectiveness, developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Disagreements were dealt with by consultations with a third reviewer. Data collection  Information was extracted from each paper independently by two reviewers using the standardised data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Disagreements were dealt with by consultation with a third reviewer. Data synthesis  Due to the type of designs and quality of available studies, it was not possible to pool quantitative research study results in statistical meta-analysis. As statistical pooling was not possible, the findings are presented in descriptive narrative form. Results  Twenty-three studies were selected for inclusion in this review including partial task trainers and high-fidelity human patient simulators. The results indicate that there is high learner satisfaction with using simulators to learn clinical skills. The studies demonstrated that human patient simulators which are used for teaching higher level skills, such as airway management, and physiological concepts are useful. While there are short-term gains in knowledge and skill performance, it is evident that performance of skills over time after initial training decline. Conclusion  At best, simulation can be used as an adjunct for clinical practice, not a replacement for everyday practice. Students enjoyed the sessions and using the models purportedly makes learning easier. However, it remains unclear whether the skills learned through a simulation experience transfer into real-world settings. More research is needed to evaluate whether the skills acquired with this teaching methodology transfer to the practice setting such as the impact of simulation training on team function.

Lost in Knowledge Translation: Time for a Map?

&NA; There is confusion and misunderstanding about the concepts of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, research utilization, implementation, diffusion, and dissemination. We review the terms and definitions used to describe the concept of moving knowledge into action. We also offer a conceptual framework for thinking about the process and integrate the roles of knowledge creation and knowledge application. The implications of knowledge translation for continuing education in the health professions include the need to base continuing education on the best available knowledge, the use of educational and other transfer strategies that are known to be effective, and the value of learning about planned‐action theories to be better able to understand and influence change in practice settings.

Systematic review of practice guideline dissemination and implementation strategies for healthcare teams and team-based practice

AIM To synthesis the literature relevant to guideline dissemination and implementation strategies for healthcare teams and team-based practice. METHODS Systematic approach utilising Joanna Briggs Institute methods. Two reviewers screened all articles and where there was disagreement, a third reviewer determined inclusion. RESULTS Initial search revealed 12,083 of which 88 met the inclusion criteria. Ten dissemination and implementation strategies identified with distribution of educational materials the most common. Studies were assessed for patient or practitioner outcomes and changes in practice, knowledge and economic outcomes. A descriptive analysis revealed multiple approaches using teams of healthcare providers were reported to have statistically significant results in knowledge, practice and/or outcomes for 72.7% of the studies. CONCLUSION Team-based care using practice guidelines locally adapted can affect positively patient and provider outcomes.

Quality of life of individuals with Heart failure: A randomized trial of the effectiveness of two models of hospital-to-home Transition

Background. The growing number of patients with congestive heart failure has increased both the pressure on hospital resources and the need for community management of the condition. Improving hospital-to-home transition for this population is a logical step in responding to current practice guidelines’ recommendations for coordination and education. Positive outcomes have been reported from trials evaluating multiple interventions, enhanced hospital discharge, and follow-up through the addition of a case management role. The question remains if similar gains could be achieved working with usual hospital and community nurses. Methods. A 12-week, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted of the effect of transitional care on health-related quality of life (disease-specific and generic measures), rates of readmission, and emergency room use. The nurse-led intervention focused on the transition from hospital-to-home and supportive care for self-management 2 weeks after hospital discharge. Results. At 6 weeks after hospital discharge, the overall Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score was better among the Transitional Care patients (27.2 ± 19.1 SD) than among the Usual Care patients (37.5 ± 20.3 SD;P = 0.002). Similar results were found at 12 weeks postdischarge for the overall MLHFQ and at 6- and 12-weeks postdischarge for the MLHFQ’s Physical Dimension and Emotional Dimension subscales. Differences in generic quality life, as assessed by the SF-36 Physical component, Mental Component, and General Health subscales, were not significantly different between the Transition and Usual Care groups. At 12 weeks postdischarge, 31% of the Usual Care patients had been readmitted compared with 23% of the Transitional Care patients (P = 0.26), and 46% of the Usual Care group visited the emergency department compared with 29% in the Transitional Care group (&khgr;2 = 4.86, df 1, P = 0.03). Conclusions. There were significant improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQL) associated with Transitional Care and less use of emergency rooms.

Prevalence of lower-limb ulceration: a systematic review of prevalence studies.

OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence of leg ulcers reported in the literature. DESIGN A systematic review of prevalence studies of lower-limb ulceration in the adult population was conducted. Critical appraisal of the research papers was guided by published standards for methodologic review of prevalence studies, which were modified to address the issues related to leg ulcers. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-two reports of prevalence studies were identified. Eight population-based prevalence studies used clinical validation and reported prevalence rates of open ulcers ranging from 0.12% to 1.1% of the population; the prevalence rate of open or healed ulcers was reported to be 1.8%. Seven population-based studies without clinical validation reported prevalence rates of open ulcers ranging from 0.12% to 0.32% of the population. Differences in the populations studied, study design, ulcer definition, ulcer etiology, inclusion of foot ulcers, method of clinical assessment, and clinical validation of ulcer cases indicate that it is inappropriate to pool the estimates of prevalence. In most studies that considered age and sex, the prevalence of ulcers increased with age and was higher for women. CONCLUSIONS Better-quality prevalence studies are needed. These studies should clearly define the populations being studied, include large numbers of individuals and total populations, provide a clear definition of an ulcer, describe case identification procedures, and clinically confirm the presence of ulcers.

Adapting clinical practice guidelines to local context and assessing barriers to their use

The knowledge-to-action cycle represents a framework for the implementation of knowledge. [1][1] As discussed in the first article in this series, the action phases of this cycle were derived from a review of 31 theories of planned action. [2][2] Included in this cycle ([Figure 1][3]) are the

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.

Guideline adaptation: an approach to enhance efficiency in guideline development and improve utilisation

Background Developing and updating high-quality guidelines requires substantial time and resources. To reduce duplication of effort and enhance efficiency, we developed a process for guideline adaptation and assessed initial perceptions of its feasibility and usefulness. Methods Based on preliminary developments and empirical studies, a series of meetings with guideline experts were organised to define a process for guideline adaptation (ADAPTE) and to develop a manual and a toolkit made available on a website (http://www.adapte.org). Potential users, guideline developers and implementers, were invited to register and to complete a questionnaire evaluating their perception about the proposed process. Results The ADAPTE process consists of three phases (set-up, adaptation, finalisation), 9 modules and 24 steps. The adaptation phase involves identifying specific clinical questions, searching for, retrieving and assessing available guidelines, and preparing the draft adapted guideline. Among 330 registered individuals (46 countries), 144 completed the questionnaire. A majority found the ADAPTE process clear (78%), comprehensive (69%) and feasible (60%), and the manual useful (79%). However, 21% found the ADAPTE process complex. 44% feared that they will not find appropriate and high-quality source guidelines. Discussion A comprehensive framework for guideline adaptation has been developed to meet the challenges of timely guideline development and implementation. The ADAPTE process generated important interest among guideline developers and implementers. The majority perceived the ADAPTE process to be feasible, useful and leading to improved methodological rigour and guideline quality. However, some de novo development might be needed if no high quality guideline exists for a given topic.

Evaluation and adaptation of clinical practice guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines are “systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”1 They are intended to offer concise instructions on how to provide healthcare services.2 The most important benefit of clinical practice guidelines is their potential to improve both the quality or process of care and patient outcomes.3 Increasingly, clinicians and clinical managers must choose from numerous, sometimes differing, and occasionally contradictory, guidelines.4 This situation is further complicated by concerns about the quality of available guidelines.5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Indeed, adoption of guidelines of questionable validity can lead to the use of ineffective interventions, inefficient use of scarce resources, and perhaps most importantly, harm to patients.12,13 Determining which guidelines are quality products worthy of adoption can be daunting. Every effort should be made to identify existing guidelines that have been rigorously developed and to adopt or adapt them for local use.12 However, organisations and clinicians should scrutinise the methods by which the guidelines were developed, as well as the content and utility of the recommendations. Even guidelines developed by prominent professional groups or government bodies should not be exempt from this scrutiny as it has been shown that these guidelines may be of substandard quality.10 The Practice Guidelines Evaluation and Adaptation Cycle14,15 is a framework for organising and making decisions about which high quality guidelines to adopt (figure). Although the cycle was originally intended for use by organisations and groups wanting to implement best practice, most steps of the process are also helpful in guiding evaluation of guidelines by individual clinicians. This Users’ guide will describe strategies for identifying, critically appraising, and adopting or adapting guidelines for local use. ![][1] Practice guidelines evaluation and adaptation cycle Adapted from … [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif

Barriers to implementation of stroke rehabilitation evidence: findings from a multi-site pilot project

Purpose: To describe the barriers to implementation of evidence-based recommendations (EBRs) for stroke rehabilitation experienced by nurses, occupational therapists, physical therapists, physicians and hospital managers. Methods: The Stroke Canada Optimization of Rehabilitation by Evidence project developed EBRs for arm and leg rehabilitation after stroke. Five Canadian stroke inpatient rehabilitation centers participated in a pilot implementation study. At each site, a clinician was identified as the “local facilitator” to promote the 6-month implementation. A research coordinator observed the process. Focus groups done at completion were analyzed thematically for barriers by two raters. Results: A total of 79 rehabilitation professionals (23 occupational therapists, 17 physical therapists, 23 nurses and 16 directors/managers) participated in 21 focus groups of three to six participants each. The most commonly noted barrier to implementation was lack of time followed by staffing issues, training/education, therapy selection and prioritization, equipment availability and team functioning/communication. There was variation in perceptions of barriers across stakeholders. Nurses noted more training and staffing issues and managers perceived fewer barriers than frontline clinicians. Conclusions: Rehabilitation guideline developers should prioritize evidence for implementation and employ user-friendly language. Guideline implementation strategies must be extremely time efficient. Organizational approaches may be required to overcome the barriers. Implications for Rehabiliation Despite increasingly strong evidence for stroke rehabilitation, there are delays in implementation into clinical practice. This study showed that lack of time, staffing issues, staff education, therapy selection or prioritization, lack of equipment and team functioning were the main barriers to implementation. Managers and stakeholders should consider these barriers and prioritize evidence when implementing.