4.2 Article

Linking to Improve Nursing Care and Knowledge Evaluation of an Initiative to Provide Research Support to Clinical Nurses

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING ADMINISTRATION
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 48-54

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000707

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe and evaluate the impact of the Linking to Improve Nursing Care and Knowledge (LINK) project on increasing nurse-led clinical research. BACKGROUND: Nurse-generated research is the cornerstone of evidence-based practice and continues to be a marker of nursing excellence. However, the dearth of PhD-prepared nurses creates a challenge for creating an environment to promote clinical nursing research. We evaluated the LINK project, an academic-clinical partnership, to assess its impact and feasibility, for fostering nurse-led clinical research. METHODS: The LINK project created a formal command and control structure bringing together existing academic resources, including a PhD-prepared nurse researcher, a biostatistician, and a development of a formal research consultation request process. Measures tracked over a 12-month period included average response time, request volume, client satisfaction, institutional review board (IRB)-submitted protocols, and work products. RESULTS: All measures exceeded expectations with an average 1-day request response time, 35 requests, 98% client satisfaction, a 367% increase in nurse-led IRB approved protocols from the previous 12-month period, and 2 publications in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: The process and outcome measures indicate that the LINK project is feasible, sustainable, and reproducible. We were able to meet and, in many cases, exceed measurement goals. In addition, implementation science literature indicates that the most valid measure of a successful project rollout is user satisfaction and usefulness. The LINK project received consistently positive feedback.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据