Tag Archives: RN

“Is it?” “It is!” Expert opinion as valuable evidence for practice.

Remember back when you asked your mom why you should make your bed, set the table, or do some other then-distasteful task? Maybe you said, “Do I have to?”

Because I Said SoRemember her answer? Sometimes it was just: “Because I said so!” Was that enough evidence to support your practice of setting the table or making your bed?  You bet! After all she was THE expert on such things.

Likewise…is expert opinion good evidence for your practice? Yes, it is. EXPERT OPINION of individuals or committees is the 7th level of evidence for nursing practice (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2005), and should be considered.

Of course the first question that you must ask is: “Is the person/committee (who is telling you how to prevent falls, promote safety, teach patients, and so on and on) an actual EXPERT on that topic?” The answer is a matter of judgment. If the person/committee has special education, credentials, or experience or is a recognized authority on the topic about which they are giving advice, then you could reasonably conclude yes, they are experts. In that case the advice should be considered evidence for practice.    (Caution: Your judgment of their expertise matters!–don’t just follow along.  Don’t forget that person who is expert in one area may not be an expert in another.)

The 2nd question that you must ask is; “Does any research or stronger level of evidence exist on the topic?”

  • If it does NOT exist, then you should use that expert opinion in combination with scientific principles, anecdotal case reports, and theory. Or you might create some new research yourself. (Source=Iowa EBP Model)
  • If it DOES EXIST, then you should pay most attention to the stronger evidence and interpret the weaker evidence of expert opinion in that light.

QUESTIONCritical thinking:  Try your new knowledge in this example. Many educators and professionals who run journal clubs consider journal clubs effective based on feedback from participants. At least in 2008, 80% of experimental studies suggested that journal clubs helped with learning and being able to critically review a research article. However, no research is available on whether the learning from journal clubs actually translates into practice (Deenadayalan et al., 2008). You are considering a journal club. What would you decide to do and why?

For more, see:

It Takes a “Village”

BEST patient care results from using the best evidence in practice using your clinical judgment and the preferences and values of patients & families. In shorthand this is called evidence-based practice (EBP).

Most of the time it takes more than one person to bring evidence into practice.   Maybe not really a whole village,….but definitely anyone  who will be affected by the change OR whose cooperation you need to make the change!

team

In the last blog, we considered how to identify a problem clearly by using the acronym PICO.   Here was our example:

  • P = Postoperative patients with ileus (Patient population & Problem)
  • I = Gum chewing postop (Intervention to try out)
  • C = NPO with gradual diet progression when bowel sounds start returning (Comparison intervention—maybe the current protocol or highly varied individual RN expertise)
  • O = Reduce time of postop ileus with sooner return to nutritious eating (Outcome—what you want to happen!)  (For more on PICO check out last week’s post: “You Got a Problem with That? Try PICO)

The next BIG question: “Is the problem you have identified a PRIORITY?”

priority

  • Some priorities are triggered by problems—for example, your observation that something is not working, or poor PI outcome data, or below benchmark HCAHPS scores.
  • Others are triggered by new knowledge—for example, you read an   article, new research has come out, or your professional organization has new standards.

Now what? You need to gather your “village,” even if it’s only 2 people!!   Let’s say postoperative ileus is a BIG, PRIORITY problem on your unit, and you saw a research article on how gum chewing reduces time of postop ileus. Your next question is, “Who do I need to help reduce ileus by trying out gum chewing?” Well…your manager would certainly want to know, and the surgeon. Other patient-care RNs on the unit are critical to its success, too. And maybe you could use some help in finding and critiquing articles/evidence.

team

NO need to go it alone in solving the issue! Find others who care about the problem. Invite them & anyone (stakeholders) who would need to know about the postop gum chewing. The team can be 2 people if you like; or a lot more.

  • If you have a unit-based council, then you already have a pre-made team!
  • If you need to find some teammates, consider some of these people: a respected clinician with lots of respect; a new graduate with lots of energy; someone who loves to read research; & others.

Critical Thinking: Think of a clinical problem on your unit. Write it out in PICO format and list the names of those who would be on your problem-solving “village” team.  Whose cooperation do you need?

Want to read more? Melnyk, B.M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S.B., Williamson, & K. (2009). Evidence-Based Practice: Step by Step: Igniting a Spirit of Inquiry, American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49-52, doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58

You Got A Problem With That? Try PICO*

IF….

  • The Purpose of evidence-based practice (EBP) =  BEST PATIENT CARE, &
  • The Definition of EBP = Best evidence + Clinical judgment + Patient/Family preferences & values

THEN…How do I get started with EBP to improve patient care?

One of the 1st steps is to identify clearly the clinical issue that needs solving.   One way to do that is by using PICO.*

WHAT IS PICO?   PICO is an acronym to help you clarify the clinical problem & to help you prepare to search the literature for evidence

  • P = Patient population or problem
  • I = Intervention or treatment that you want to try out & is based in best evidence
  • C = Comparison intervention or treatment (This might be some standardized care on your unit; or un-standardized care given by individual nurses based on their individual expertise)
  • O = Outcome you want to achieve.

EXAMPLE:  Let’s say you work with post-op patients and want to speed up patients’ return of normal GI function.  Right now on your unit, patients are NPO post-op progressing to ice chips and so on as their bowel sounds start returning.  But you have 2 concerns: a) some patients’ GI function seems quite slow to return; & b) quicker return to a nutritious diet may speed healing.  You read an article that gum chewing can reduce the time of postoperative ileus.  With that information, here is how your PICO problem would look:

  • P = Postoperative patients with ileus
  • I = Gum chewing postop
  • C = NPO with gradual diet progression when bowel sounds start returning
  • O = Reduce time of postop ileus with sooner return to nutritious eating

CRITICAL THINKING: Now you try it.  What is problem for patients (or nurses) on your unit? Try writing it out in a sentence or two and then put it into PICO format.  You are now on your way with beginning an EBP project that will promote the very BEST PATIENT CARE.

*Note: Some use PICOT that includes “T”.  The “T” stands for the time it will take to show an outcome.  Because the timing does not seem to me relevant to all questions I typically omit it, but you may find it helpful.  If so, use it!

 

Ebola or Other Outbreak: When We Can’t or Shouldn’t Experiment

 What do we do to study the cause of disease when we cannot or should not expose people to disease risk (i.e., manipulate the independent variable). For example, while we want to understand Ebola transmission and outcomes, legally and ethically we cannot & should not expose people to Ebola risk factors.   We cannot do Ebola experiments on people.

Thus, we have to observe what happens when nature takes its course. One common research design in which we let disease/nature take its course is a case-control study. What is a case-control study?

Here’s a quick explanation.   The researcher looks for people who have (or had) the disease and then looks back in time at their history of exposure to risk factors for the disease. Those who have been exposed and who did not (or not yet) get the disease are the control subjects. If risk factors for the disease are not well-known then it may be difficult to find control subjects because we would have a hard time telling who was exposed.

Case-control and other studies in which we look back at what happened in the past are called retrospective studies. (In contrast, most nursing studies are prospective studies—in other words they start at the present and move forward. For example, if we were doing research on Ebola symptom management, we would try out symptom management strategies on persons with Ebola and measure into the future how well those strategies work.)

A great flow diagram and clear explanation of case control studies is at http://www.ciphi.ca/hamilton/Content/content/resources/explore/fb_case_v_cohort.html . Check it out!

Critical thinking practice: If you were to design a case-control study related to information in the excerpt below, answer these questions:

  • Who would be the case subjects?  
  • Who would be the control subjects?
  • What are the risk factors?
  • Why would the study be retrospective?

“Ebola virus, a member of the Filoviridae group, is transmitted by direct contact with blood, secretions, or contaminated objects and is associated with high case-fatality rates (28). Investigations of outbreaks in Africa suggest that Ebola infection may be more severe during pregnancy and that mortality rates are higher. Pregnant women infected with Ebola more often have serious complications, such as hemorrhagic and neurologic sequelae, than do nonpregnant patients (31). Unlike risk for death from Lassa fever, which is highest during the third trimester of pregnancy, risk for death from Ebola is similar during all trimesters (33).” (Jamieson et al, 2006, http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/11/06-0152_article)

 

In Conclusion: “Back to the future”

A great conclusion to a study can take several forms.   One of these is like the abstract. The researcher summarizes the entire study in 100-200 words or so.   Researchers can also end with the suggestions for future research or an intriguing quote.   A great conclusion will give you the “bottom line” of why the study is important to you!

Thus it is sometimes valuable when FIRST encountering a new research article, to scan the abstract, intro, discussion/implications, and conclusion FIRST.   This will give you the big picture—the 30,000 foot level picture. Then you can get down at “ground level” and read the whole research article more carefully.

Research reports are Not mystery novels, and the plot will Not be spoiled if you read the conclusion first!  You may find that doing this makes it easier to understand the article.

If you are writing a research report yourself, then make sure that you keep the conclusion lively and interesting!   You know your project—what is THE main take away that you want readers to have?

CRITICAL THINKING….

Assume that you read the following Conclusion from Brown & McCormack (2006) BEFORE reading the rest of the article.   What ideas would you look for in the article that show up here in this “end-of-the-article-abstract-and-implications”? Which of their conclusions would you check out within the main article?

     This ethnographic study highlighted a number of issues that affected the older persons’ pain experience in the acute surgical setting. Additionally, it provided insight into how nurses approached the assessment and management of pain in this patient group. The study demonstrated the value of applying multiple sources and methods of data collection in order to obtain a more complete view of the competing forces that operate within the ward environment.

     Data analysis revealed three action cycles for further developmental work – pain assessment practices, knowledge/ insight and strategies to cope with episodes of uncontrolled pain and organization of care, along with ward culture, have been identified as having an inhibitory effect on pain management in older people. In addition, recognition that patient barriers may contribute to ineffective pain management is a point worthy of consideration.

     Improving pain management practices, therefore, requires healthcare professionals to reflect on reactions, values and beliefs surrounding pain and examine how these have the potential to influence the care provided. Consequently, there is a need for a focused, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach to challenge current pain management practices and implement change. There is a growing acknowledgement that successful interventions must deploy multiple strategies, targeting aspects of the individual, the organization, its culture and characteristics of the message, simultaneously (Kitson 2001). (p.1296)

Reference: Brown, D., & McCormack, B. (2006). Determining factors that have an impact upon effective evidence-based pain management with older people, following colorectal surgery: An ethnographic study. The Authors. Journal compilation, 1987-1298. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01553.x

NEW site to Discovering Your Inner Scientist

Welcome to my new Discovering Your Inner Scientist blog location–a site focused on nursing evidence-based practice and scientist interests!  This site should be more user-friendly.

The blog remains focused on the interests primarily of staff RNs and is inspired by my colleagues at Dignity Health Northridge Hospital Medical Center.

For earlier posts on how to read research, go to http://discoveringyourinnerscientist.blogspot.com/  .   I plan to pick up the discussion here where that site left off, and I will continue to welcome your comments.