Evidence-Based Clinical Pathways To Manage Urinary Tract Infections in Long-Term Care Facilities:A Qualitative Case Study Describing Administrator and Nursing Staff Views

Objectives: This article examines the views of nursing staff and administrators in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) regarding a clinical pathway for managing urinary tract infections (UTIs) in LTCF residents. Design: A qualitative (case study) design was used. Setting: Data were collected from 8 LTCFs in southern Ontario and 2 in Iowa enrolled in a larger randomized controlled trial of clinical pathway for managing UTIs in LTCF residents, conducted between September 2001 and March 2003. The clinical pathway, designed to more effectively identify, diagnose, and treat UTIs, and reduce inappropriate antibiotics use for asymptomatic UTIs, introduced 2 decision tools to determine when to order a urine culture and initiate antibiotic treatment for suspected UTIs. Participants: We conducted 19 individual interviews with administrators and 10 focus groups with 52 nurses. Findings: Nurses generally thought that the pathways were well developed and easy to use, and administrators believed they were an important educational resource. Barriers to their use varied by group-initial lack of buy-in from nurses (medical directors), additional work (directors of nursing), and the need to change the protocol to exclude certain residents based on prior health conditions and/or pressure from physicians or families (nurses). Conclusions: Both administrators and staff, once familiar with a new clinical protocol to improve UTI management in LTCFs, generally supported its use. © 2007 American Medical Directors Association.

Behaviour analysis and evidence-based education

Education has a powerful and long-term effect on people’s lives and therefore should be based on evidence of what works best. This assertion warrants a definition of what constitutes good research evidence. Two research designs that are often thought to come from diametrically opposed fields, single-subject research designs and randomised controlled-trials, are described and common features, such as the use of probabilistic assumptions and the aim of discovering causal relations are delineated. Differences between the two research designs are also highlighted and this is used as the basis to set out how these two research designs might better be used to complement one another. Recommendations for future action are made accordingly.

An evidence based approach for the provision of resin-bonded bridgework

Resin bonded bridgework (RBB) is a technique often overlooked by practitioners despite a large amount of evidence supporting the technique. In Cork University Dental School an evidence-based, standardised approach for the delivery of RBB by undergraduate students has been developed over the past 10 years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of this standardised approach on the delivery of RBB by students. 222 bridges were reviewed which had been delivered over a 6 year time period between 2002 and 2007. A success rate of 84.1% was achieved with a mean survival time of 41 months. This study illustrates that predictable and highly successful RBB can be delivered by inexperienced clinicians using an evidence-based, standardised approach.

Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing.

Background
The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care.

Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team.

Results
Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: ‘Skills’, ‘Beliefs about capabilities’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘Social/professional role and identity’, ‘Social influences’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: ‘Action planning’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour’ and ‘Salience of consequences’. An additional BCT (‘Social support or encouragement’) was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists.

Conclusions
Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

Surgical strategies for coexisting glaucoma and cataract: an evidence-based update.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess short- and long-term control of intraocular pressure (IOP) with different surgical treatment strategies for coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Systematic literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a search of the published literature to identify all eligible articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. One investigator abstracted the content of each article onto a custom-designed form. A second investigator corroborated the findings. The evidence supporting different approaches was graded by consensus as good, fair, weak, or insufficient.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Short-term (24 hours or fewer) and long-term (more than 24 hours) IOP control.

RESULTS:

The evidence was good that long-term IOP is lowered more by combined glaucoma and cataract operations than by cataract operations alone. On average, the IOP was 3 to 4 mmHg lower in the combined groups with fewer medications required. The evidence was weak that extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) alone results in short-term increase in IOP and was insufficient to determine the short-term impact of phacoemulsification cataract extraction (PECE) on IOP in glaucoma patients. The evidence was weak that short-term IOP control was better with ECCE or PECE combined with an incisional glaucoma procedure compared with ECCE or PECE alone. The evidence was also weak (but consistent) that long-term IOP is lowered by 2 to 4 mmHg after ECCE or PECE. Finally, there was weak evidence that combined PECE and trabeculectomy produces slightly worse long-term IOP control than trabeculectomy alone, and there was fair evidence that the same is true for ECCE combined with trabeculectomy.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is strong evidence for better long-term control of IOP with combined glaucoma and cataract operations compared with cataract surgery alone. For other issues regarding surgical treatment strategies for cataract and glaucoma, the available evidence is limited or conflicting.

Post-trauma: Is evidence based practice a fantasy?

Trauma, bereavement, and loss are universal human experiences. Much has been written about the process that the bereaved go through following the loss of a loved one. Recent events such as 9/11, earthquakes in Turkey, genocides in Rwanda, community conflict in Northern Ireland, and the Asian Tsunami Disaster have drawn unprecedented public attention to the subject of traumatic bereavement. Increasingly, it is recognised that while most people are able to cope with loss generally by eventually restructuring their lives, those bereaved in traumatic circumstance often find it extremely difficult. As a consequence, a plethora of interventions have emerged, however, to-date, little is know about their actual effectiveness in helping the bereaved. With the emphasis of health and welfare professions on evidencebased practice (EBP) greater than ever and a raising awareness of accountability as key element of ethical practice, the call for EBP in traumatic bereavement is compelling. Using examples from work carried out in Northern Ireland, we look at the backdrop of the issues involved, describe some of the most commonly used therapeutic interventions, and explore the possibility of evidence-based practice.

The postmodernist war on evidence-based practice

In this paper, we examine the war of words between those who contend that health care practice, including nursing, should primarily be informed by research (the evidence-based practice movement), and those who argue that there should be no restrictions on the sources of knowledge used by practitioners (the postmodernists). We review the postmodernist interventions of Dave Holmes and his colleagues, observing that the postmodernist style to which they adhere, which includes the use of continental philosophy, metaphors, and acerbic delivery, tends to obscure their substantive arguments. The heated nature of some responses to them has tended to have the same effect. However, the substantive arguments are important. Five main postmodernist charges are identified and discussed. The first argument, that the notion of ‘best evidence’ implies a hierarchical and exclusivist approach to knowledge, is persuasive. However, the contention that this hierarchy is maintained by the combined pressures of capitalism and vested interests within academia and the health services, is less well founded. Nevertheless, postmodernist contentions that the hierarchy embraced by the evidence-based practice movement damages health care because it excludes other forms of evidence that are needed to understand the complexity of care, it marginalizes important aspects of clinical knowledge, and it fails to take account of individuals or their experience, are all seen to be of some merit. However, we do not share the postmodernist conclusion that this adds up to a fascist order. Instead, we characterize evidence-based practice as a necessary but not sufficient component of health care knowledge.