4.5 Article

From workshop to work practice: An exploration of context and facilitation in the development of evidence-based practice

期刊

WORLDVIEWS ON EVIDENCE-BASED NURSING
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 84-93

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2005.04088.x

关键词

evidence-based practice; context; facilitation; nursing; educational outreach

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This article examines the process of translating evidence into practice using a facilitation model developed by the Western Australian Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Aims: Using the conceptual framework Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS), the aims of the study were (1) to explore the relative and combined importance of context and facilitation in the successful implementation of a new evidence-based clinical practice protocol and (2) to examine the establishment of more lasting change to individuals and organizations that resulted in greater incorporation of the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP). Methods: A pre-workshop, semi-structured telephone survey with 16 nurse managers in six rural hospitals; a summative evaluation immediately post-workshop with 54 participants; and follow-up, semi-structured interviews with 23 workshop participants. Findings: The contexts in each of the participating hospitals were very different; of the six hospitals, only one had not implemented the new protocol. Five had reviewed their practices and brought them in line with the protocol developed at the workshop. The rate of adoption varied considerably from 2 weeks to months. The participants reported being better informed about EBP in general and were positive about their ability to improve their practice and search more efficiently for best practice information. Underlying motivations for protocol development should be included in the PARIHS framework. Implications for Education: Good facilitation appears to be more influential than context in overcoming the barriers to the uptake of EBP.

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