Medscape just came out with Eric J. Topol article: 15 Studies that Challenged Medical Dogma in 2019. Critically check it out to practice your skills in applying evidence to practice. What are the implications for your practice? Are more or stronger studies needed before this overturning of dogma becomes simply more dogma? Are the resources and people’s readiness there for any warranted change? If not, what needs to happen? What are the risks of adopting these findings into practice?
Yes. Change can be painful.
Yes. It is easier to do things the way we’ve always done them (and been seemingly successful).
Yet, most of us want to work more efficiently or improve our own or patients’ health.
So, there you have the problem: a tension between status quo and change. Perhaps taking the easy status quo is why ‘everyday nurses’ don’t read research.
Ralph (2017) writes encountering 3 common mindsets that keep nurses stuck in the rut of refusing to examine new research:
- I’m not a researcher.
- I don’t value research.
- I don’t have time to read research.
But, he argues, you have a choice: you can go with the status quo or challenge it (Ralph). And (admit it), haven’t we all found that the status quo sometimes doesn’t work well so that we end up
- choosing a “work around,” or
- ignoring/avoiding the problem or
- leaving the problem for someone else or
- ….[well….,you pick an action.]
How to begin solving the problem of not reading research? Think of a super-interesting topic to you and make a quick trip to PubMed.com. Check out a few relevant abstracts and ask your librarian to get the articles for you. Read them in the nurses’ lounge so others can, too.
Let me know how your challenge to the status quo works out.
Bibliography: Fulltext available for download through https://www.researchgate.net/ of Ralph, N. (2017 April). Editorial: Engaging with research & evidence is a nursing priority so why are ‘everyday’ nurses not reading the literature, ACORN 30(3):3-5. doi: 10.26550/303/3.5
The difference between research and evidence-based practice (EBP) can sometimes be confusing, but the contrast between them is sharp. I think most of the confusion comes because those implementing both processes measure outcomes. Here are differences:
- RESEARCH : The process of research (formulating an answerable question, designing project methods, collecting and analyzing the data, and interpreting themeaning of results) is creating knowledge (AKA creating research evidence). A research project that has been written up IS evidence that can be used in practice. The process of research is guided by the scientific method.
- EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE: EBP is using existing knowledge (AKA using research evidence) in practice. While researchers create new knowledge,
The creation of evidence obviously precedes its application to practice. Something must be made before it can be used. Research obviously precedes the application of research findings to practice. When those findings are applied to practice, then we say the practice is evidence-based.
A good analogy for how research & EBP differ & work together can be seen in autos.
- Designers & factory workers create new cars.
- Drivers use existing cars that they choose according to preferences and best judgments about safety.
CRITICAL THINKING: 1) Why is the common phrase “evidence-based research” unclear? Should you use it? Why or why not? 2) What is a clinical question you now face. (e.g., C.Diff spread; nurse morale on your unit; managing neuropathic pain) and think about how the Stetler EBP model at http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/resource/pdf/83.pdf might help. Because you will be measuring outcomes, then why is this still considered EBP.