evidence based practice and the development of aorns recommended practices lisa spruce, dnp, rn,...
Post on 31-Mar-2015
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Evidence Based Practice and the Development of AORNs Recommended Practices
Lisa Spruce, DNP, RN, CNOR, ACNS, ACNP
Director, Evidence-Based Perioperative Practice
2
It starts with research
3
• It takes an average of 17 years to move research to practice
• EBP provides point of care clinicians tools needed to improve care
• EBP transforms health care based on one clinician, one encounter at a time
Why EBP?
4
Why EBP?
5
EBP
6
• By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice. Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patient’s predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care.³
EBP
7
• “Rather than dictating a one-size-fits-all approach to patient care, clinical practice guidelines offer an evaluation of the quality of the relevant scientific literature and an assessment of the likely benefits and harms of a particular treatment¹.”
~Institute of Medicine
Why Clinical Practice Guidelines?
8
• Formulate the clinical question
Where do we start?
PPatient PopulationProblem
IInterventions
- Education- Self-care- Best practices
CComparison
- Current practice- Another intervention
O Outcome
IM Injections: Aspirate or not?
P Adult patients
IAspirate when giving IM injection
C No aspiration
O Injury
Question:Among adult patients, does aspirating while giving an IM injection cause injury compared to no aspiration?
10
Search the literature
Conducting a Search
Databases Databases
~ Cochrane ~ Google Scholar
~ AHRQ - NGC ~ Joanna Briggs
~ Pubmed ~ Virginia Henderson
~ CINAHL® International Nursing
~ ANA - Medline Library
~ AORN Journal ~ Embase
~ Medical Library
12
Types of evidence
Appraise the evidenceAORN’s tools
Research Non-Research
14
Evidence appraisal
The strength of the research evidence is indicated by I, II, or III for research and IV or V for non-research
The quality of the research evidence is indicated by A, B, or C
Appraisal Score
16
Quality is subjective
17
Quality is the challenge
• Was there a clear explanation of the purpose of the study and, if so, what was it?
• Were there enough people in the study to establish that the findings did not occur by chance?
• How were variables defined?
• Were the instruments designed to measure a concept valid (did they measure what the researchers said they measured)?
• Were they reliable (did they measure a concept the same way every time they were used)?
18
• What statistics were used to determine if the purpose of the study was achieved?
• Did people leave the study and, if so, was there something special about them?
• Did the researchers base their work on a thorough literature review?
• Is the study purpose an important clinical issue?²
Quality
AORN Evidence Rating Model
Appraisal ScoreEvidence Rating Evidence Requirements
Research Non-Research
IA
IVA Regulatory
1: Strong Evidence1: Regulatory requirement
Interventions or activities for which effectiveness has been demonstrated by strong evidence from rigorously-designed studies, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews, rigorously-developed clinical practice guidelines, or regulatory requirements. Evidence from a meta-analysis or systematic review of research
studies that incorporated evidence appraisal and synthesis of the evidence in the analysis.
Supportive evidence from a single well-conducted randomized controlled trial.
Guidelines that are developed by a panel of experts, that derive from an explicit literature search methodology, and include evidence appraisal and synthesis of the evidence.
IBIIA, IIBIIIA, IIIB
IVBVA, VB
2: Moderate Evidence
Interventions or activities for which the evidence is less well established than for those listed under “1: Strong Evidence.” Supportive evidence from a well-conducted research study. Guidelines developed by a panel of experts which are primarily based
on the evidence but not supported by evidence appraisal and synthesis of the evidence.
Non-research evidence with consistent results and fairly definitive conclusions.
ICIICIIIC
IVCVC
3: Limited Evidence
Interventions or activities for which there are currently insufficient evidence or evidence of inadequate quality. Supportive evidence from a poorly conducted research study. Evidence from non-experimental studies with high potential for bias. Guidelines developed largely by consensus or expert opinion. Non-research evidence with insufficient evidence or inconsistent
results. Conflicting evidence, but where the preponderance of the evidence
supports the recommendation.
No requirement No requirement 4: Benefits Balanced With HarmsSelected interventions or activities for which the AORN Recommended Practices Advisory Board (RPAB) is of the opinion that the desirable effects of following this recommendation outweigh the harms.
No requirement No requirement 5: No EvidenceInterventions or activities for which no supportive evidence was found during the literature search completed for the recommendation. Consensus opinion.
AORN Evidence Rating Model
1: Strong Evidence
1: Regulatory requirement
IA
IVA Regulatory
1: Strong Evidence1: Regulatory requirement
Interventions or activities for which effectiveness has been demonstrated by strong evidence from rigorously-designed studies, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews, rigorously-developed clinical practice guidelines, or regulatory requirements. Evidence from a meta-analysis or systematic review of research
studies that incorporated evidence appraisal and synthesis of the evidence in the analysis.
Supportive evidence from a single well-conducted randomized controlled trial.
Guidelines that are developed by a panel of experts, that derive from an explicit literature search methodology, and include evidence appraisal and synthesis of the evidence.
AORN Evidence Rating Model
2: Moderate Evidence
3: Limited Evidence
IBIIA, IIBIIIA, IIIB
IVBVA, VB
2: Moderate Evidence
Interventions or activities for which the evidence is less well established than for those listed under “1: Strong Evidence.” Supportive evidence from a well-conducted research study. Guidelines developed by a panel of experts which are primarily
based on the evidence but not supported by evidence appraisal and synthesis of the evidence.
Non-research evidence with consistent results and fairly definitive conclusions.
ICIICIIIC
IVCVC
3: Limited Evidence
Interventions or activities for which there are currently insufficient evidence or evidence of inadequate quality. Supportive evidence from a poorly conducted research study. Evidence from non-experimental studies with high potential for bias. Guidelines developed largely by consensus or expert opinion. Non-research evidence with insufficient evidence or inconsistent
results. Conflicting evidence, but where the preponderance of the evidence
supports the recommendation.
AORN Evidence Rating Model
4: Benefits Balanced with Harms
5: No Evidence
No requirement No requirement 4: Benefits Balanced With HarmsSelected interventions or activities for which the AORN Recommended Practices Advisory Board (RPAB) is of the opinion that the desirable effects of following this recommendation outweigh the harms.
No requirement No requirement 5: No EvidenceInterventions or activities for which no supportive evidence was found during the literature search completed for the recommendation. Consensus opinion.
23
Evidence synthesis
Evidence Rating
[3: Limited Evidence]
25
Public comment
AORN Evidence Rated RP
AORN Evidence Rated RP
AORN EvidenceRated RP
29
National Guideline Clearinghouse
National Guideline Clearinghouse™The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC), an AHRQ initiative, is a publicly available database of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and related documents. Updated weekly with new content, the NGC provides physicians and other health professionals, health care providers, health plans, integrated delivery systems, purchasers, and others an accessible mechanism for obtaining objective, detailed information on clinical practice guidelines and to further their dissemination, implementation, and use.
Meeting NGC Criteria
• Documentation will need to be provided showing that the guideline is based upon a systematic review of the evidence.
• Documentation must contain an assessment of the benefits and harms of the recommended care and alternative care options.
31
Compassion
32
Questions
33
References
1. Institute of Medicine. National Academy of Sciences, (2011). Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Retrieved from IOM website: http://citationmachine.net/index2.php?reqstyleid=2&mode=form&reqsrcid=APAGovernmentReport&srcCode=9&more=yes&nameCnt=1
2. Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence part i. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47-52.
3. Drisko, J. (2012, 0924). Social work resources: Evidence-based practice. Retrieved from http://sophia.smith.edu/~jdrisko/evidence_based_practice.htm
top related