4.5 Article

Implementation Science Training and Resources for Nurses and Nurse Scientists

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 47-54

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jnu.12510

关键词

Evidence-based practice; implementation science; quality

类别

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research Quality [K01HS025486]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K12HL137943-01]
  3. American Association of Critical-Care Nurses
  4. [UL1TR002243]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this article is to describe the differences between quality improvement and implementation science, the urgency for nurses and nurse scientists to engage in implementation science, and international educational opportunities and resources for implementation science. Organizing Construct There is a push for providing safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable health care. Implementation science plays a key role in adoption and integration of evidence-based practices to improve quality of care. Methods We reviewed implementation science programs, organizations, and literature to analyze the roles of nurses and nurse scientists in translating evidence into routine practice. Findings Implementation-trained nurses and nurse scientists are needed as part of multidisciplinary teams to advance implementation science because of their unique understanding of contextual barriers within nursing practice. Likewise, nurses are uniquely qualified for recognizing what implementation strategies are needed to improve nursing care across practice settings. Conclusions Many international clinical and training resources exist and are supplied to aid interested readers in learning more about implementation science. Clinical Relevance Half of research evidence never reaches the clinical setting, and the other half takes 20 years to translate into clinical practice. Implementation science-trained nurses are in a position to be excellent improvers for meaningful change in practice.

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

4.5
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