Nursing, Provider #50-4007; Florida Board of Nursing, Provider #50-4007; Georgia Board of Nursing, Provider #50-4007; Kentucky Board of Nursing, Provider #7-0076 (valid through December 31, 2023; CE Broker Provider #50-4007); Michigan Board of Nursing, Provider #50-4007; Mississippi Board of Nursing, Provider #50- 4007; New Mexico Board of Nursing, Provider #50-4007; North Activity director June D. Thompson, DrPH, MSN, RN, FAEN, Lead Nurse Planner Disclosures Resolution of conflict of interest In accordance with the ANCC Standards for Commercial Support for continuing education, Colibri Healthcare, LLC implemented mechanisms prior to the planning and implementation of the continuing education activity, to identify and resolve conflicts of interest for all individuals in a position to control content of the course activity. Disclaimer The information provided in this activity is for continuing education purposes only and is not meant to substitute for the independent medical judgment of a healthcare provider relative
Dakota Board of Nursing, Provider #50-4007; South Carolina Board of Nursing, Provider #50-4007; and West Virginia Board of Registered Nurses, Provider #50-4007. This CE program satisfies the Massachusetts States Board’s regulatory requirements as defined in 244 CMR5.00: Continuing Education.
Sponsorship/commercial support and non-endorsement It is the policy of Colibri Healthcare, LLC not to accept commercial support. Furthermore, commercial interests are prohibited from distributing or providing access to this activity to learners.
to diagnostic and treatment options of a specific patient’s medical condition.
©2023: All Rights Reserved. Materials may not be reproduced without the expressed written permission or consent of Colibri Healthcare, LLC. The materials presented in this course are meant to provide the consumer with general information on the topics covered. The information provided was prepared by professionals with practical knowledge of the areas covered. It is not meant to provide medical, legal, or professional advice. Colibri Healthcare, LLC recommends that you consult a medical, legal, or professional services expert licensed in your state. Colibri Healthcare, LLC has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that all content provided in this course is accurate and up to date at the time of printing, but does not represent or warrant that it will apply to your situation nor circumstances and assumes no liability from reliance on these materials. Quotes are collected from customer feedback surveys. The models are intended to be representative and not actual customers. Course verification All individuals involved have disclosed that they have no No. 241, every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the content in this course is balanced and unbiased. significant financial or other conflicts of interest pertaining to this course. Likewise, and in compliance with California Assembly Bill
INTRODUCTION
Scenario 3 Various nursing councils are being established as part of a community medical center’s pursuit of Magnet accreditation. The councils include nursing research and evidence-based nursing practice councils. The formation of these councils has triggered both enthusiasm and resistance. Many nurses look forward to having more input into nursing practice within their organization. They want to participate in research that helps, not only to facilitate EBP, but also to improve nursing practice and enhance patient outcomes. Some nurses, however, are not as eager to participate in research and formalized EBP. They are concerned about learning about the nursing research process and fear that formalizing EBP will create more work without enhancing practice. They also question if the amount of time and effort necessary to achieve and maintain Magnet accreditation is worthwhile. They state that nursing turnover and staffing shortages are too high to be able to work on improving practice when the nurses are already experiencing high rates of burnout. * * * * * These three scenarios illustrate some of the strengths of EBP and some of the barriers to its implementation. Scenario 1 shows how research is necessary to the implementation of EBP. Maria and her colleagues ponder a change in a protocol they hope will ultimately enhance patient outcomes. They do not request or attempt to initiate such a change without objective evidence to support their beliefs. Such evidence is obtained from a review of relevant studies in the healthcare literature and well-designed nursing research projects. Note that Maria and her colleagues agree to abide by objective findings. One of the hallmarks of EBP is that its practitioners support the concept to improve patient outcomes. Scenario 2 is a bit more complicated and moves into an area where nurses and other healthcare professionals are all too familiar. In this scenario, an influential physician is proposing protocol changes without the benefit of objective evidence. Physicians are not the only persons who can wield influence.
The following three situations describe practice scenarios in which the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) could make a significant contribution to safe, effective patient care. Scenario 1 Maria is the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) representative to the Nursing Research Council. She proposes the design of a research study that focuses on the correlation between nursing burnout and patient outcomes. Maria and her colleagues believe that if they are required to take 30-minute meal breaks, with two 15-minute rest breaks off the nursing unit each shift, the hospital should provide a nurse to cover these breaks. By doing so, patient care would be more efficient and effective and patient outcomes would improve. They want to determine if there is evidence to justify these beliefs. They also agree to abide by the evidence obtained from a review of the literature and a well- designed nursing research project. Scenario 2 Aaliyah is a nurse practitioner who works in a neurological rehabilitation center. Many of her patients are dealing with the effects of a stroke. One of the center’s physiatrists (specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation) recently published an article in a medical journal contradicting the center’s protocol for bladder retraining in stroke patients. The article is based primarily on his personal preferences and not on scientific research findings. This physician has considerable power in the community and expects the rehabilitation center leaders to support his decisions and comply with his requests. Even though patient outcomes about bladder retraining have been excellent, the center’s administrators encourage the rehabilitation team to consider changing the protocol based on this physician’s opinions, not on available evidence. Aaliyah, a nursing department representative on the Evidence-Based Practice Council, has been asked to respond to administrative concerns. Aaliyah is asking for the council’s support in gathering evidence to justify the current practice.
EliteLearning.com/Nursing
Book Code: AUS3024
Page 151
Powered by FlippingBook