Developing Evidence-Based Practice in Child Protection

This article argues for the adoption of an evidence-based approach to decision-making in child protection. Such a change hinges upon the availability of good quality, up-to-date evidence that is readily accessible to practitioners and policy-makers. Following a resume' of the arguments for recognizing controlled trials as methodologically superior to other forms of methodology in evaluating professional interventions, the article presents the case for adopting a similarly rigorous approach to synthesizing research findings. It then identifies a range of obstacles to promoting evidence-based practice and makes recommendations for changes in training, research, and practice which might facilitate improvement in both primary research and in reviews of the literature.

The use and limitation of realistic evaluation as a tool for evidence-based practice: a critical realist perspective

In this paper, we assess realistic evaluation’s articulation with evidence-based practice (EBP) from the perspective of critical realism. We argue that the adoption by realistic evaluation of a realist causal ontology means that it is better placed to explain complex healthcare interventions than the traditional method used by EBP, the randomized controlled trial (RCT). However, we do not conclude from this that the use of RCTs is without merit, arguing that it is possible to use both methods in combination under the rubric of realist theory. More negatively, we contend that the rejection of critical theory and utopianism by realistic evaluation in favour of the pragmatism of piecemeal social engineering means that it is vulnerable to accusations that it promotes technocratic interpretations of human problems. We conclude that, insofar as realistic evaluation adheres to the ontology of critical realism, it provides a sound contribution to EBP, but insofar as it rejects the critical turn of Bhaskar’s realism, it replicates the technocratic tendencies inherent in EBP.

Moving to evidence-based practice in long-term care:the role of a Best Practise Resource Centre in two long-term care settings.

In this article, the authors provide an overview on the development of a Long-Term Care Best Practise Resource Centre. The results of both a feasibility study and the outcomes of a 1-year demonstration project are presented. The demonstration project involved a hospital as the information service provider and two demonstration sites, a home care service agency and a nursing home that used the services of the Centre. The goals of the Centre were threefold: provide access to literature for staff in long-term care (LTC) settings; improve the information management skills of health care providers; and support research and the integration of best practices in LTC organizations. The results of the pilot study contributed to the development of a collaborative information access system for LTC clinicians and managers that provides timely, up-to-date information contributing to improving the quality of care for adults receiving LTC. Based on this demonstration project, strategies for successful innovation in LTC are identified.

The Postmodernist Critique of Evidence-Based Practice

In this paper, we examine the postmodernist argument that evidence-based practice (EBP) should be rejected by nurses because it restricts the sources of knowledge used by practitioners. Three main postmodernist criticisms are identified and discussed. First, that the notion of ‘best evidence’ implies a hierarchical and exclusivist approach to knowledge. We accept this argument, noting that such a hierarchy is accepted and justified by many of its proponents. Second, 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. We accept that some manifestations of EBP, notably the Cochrane Collaboration, have devalued qualitative evidence. Using our previous experience of conducting Cochrane reviews (McGaughey et al. 2007), we argue that this limits explanatory scope. Third, that it fails to take account of individuals or their experience. Here, we use evidence of the use by midwives of EBP policies and protocols to the detriment of including women in decision-making processes (Porter et al. 2007) to accept that there is also some merit to this critique. We conclude that, while it is not necessary to concur with the total rejection of EBP that postmodernists advocate, it is necessary to address the issues they raise in order to ensure that EBP better fits the requirements of nursing.
McGaughey, J., Alderdice, F., Fowler, R., Kapila, A., Mayhew, A., Moutray, M., 2007. Outreach and Early Warning Systems (EWS) for the prevention of Intensive Care admission and death of critically ill adult patients on general hospital wards. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005529. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005529.pub2.
Porter, S., Crozier, K., Sinclair, M., Kernohan, W., 2007. New midwifery? A qualitative analysis of midwives’ decision-making strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 (6), 525-534.

Lost in translation: Public policies, evidence-based practice, and Autism Spectrum Disorder

Prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorder have risen dramatically over the past few decades (now estimated at 1:50 children). The estimated total annual cost to the public purse in the United States is US$137 billion, with an individual lifetime cost in the United Kingdom estimated at between £0.8 million and £1.23 million depending on the level of functioning. The United Nations Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has enshrined full and equal human rights—for example, for inclusion, education and employment—and there is ample evidence that much can be achieved through adequate support and early intensive behavioural interventions. Not surprisingly, most governments worldwide have devised laws, policies, and strategies to improve services related to autism spectrum disorder, yet intriguingly the approaches differ considerably across the globe. Using Northern Ireland as a case in point, we look at relevant governmental documents and offer international comparisons that illustrate inconsistencies akin to a “postcode lottery” of services.

Views of pharmacy graduates and pharmacist tutors on evidence-based practice in relation to over-the-counter consultations: a qualitative study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Health care services offered to the public should be based on the best available evidence. We aimed to explore pharmacy tutors' and trainees' views on the importance of evidence when making decisions about over-the-counter (OTC) medicines and also to investigate whether the tutor influenced the trainee in practice.

METHODS: Following ethical approval and piloting, semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacy graduates (trainees) and pharmacist tutors. Transcribed interview data were entered into the NVivo software package (version 10), coded and analysed via thematic analysis.

RESULTS: Twelve trainees (five males, seven females) and 11 tutors (five males, six females) participated. Main themes that emerged were (in)consistency and contradiction, confidence, acculturation, and continuation and perpetuation. Despite having an awareness of the importance and potential benefits, an evidence-based approach did not seem to be routinely or consistently implemented in practice. Confidence in products was largely derived from personal use and patient feedback. A lack of discussion about evidence was justified on the basis of not wanting to lessen patient confidence in requested product(s) or possibly negating the placebo effect. Trainees became acculturated to 'real-life' practice; university teaching and evidence was deemed less relevant than meeting customer expectations. The tutor's actions were mirrored by their trainee resulting in continuation and perpetuation of the same professional attitudes and behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence appeared to have limited influence on OTC decision making. The tutor played a key role in the trainee's professional development. More work could be performed to investigate how evidence can be regarded as relevant and something that is consistently implemented in practice.

Evidence-based practice: the relevance of systematic reviews.

Aim:
To demonstrate how systematic reviews provide robust evidence to inform clinical decision making in practice.

Background
Systematic reviews collate findings from a number of research studies in order to provide a comprehensive and reliable summary of the best available evidence. The use of systematic reviews to inform practice based decisions has increased as a result of the overwhelming amount of research literature available, poor quality of research evidence and the need to ensure practice is based upon the best available evidence. Systematic reviews are an efficient way of coping with large volumes of data to answer focused research questions. They differ from traditional literature reviews as they adhere to an explicit scientific process. The use of explicit and rigorous methods to identify, appraise and synthesise relevant studies minimises bias and provides a reliable basis for decision making. As a result systematic reviews provide clear evidence on the effectiveness of a healthcare intervention to inform policy and decision making across healthcare systems. An example of how the findings from systematic reviews can provide reliable evidence to inform healthcare decisions will be provided in this presentation1. This will demonstrate how focused clinical questions can be answered by systematic reviews and translated into practice.

Reference:
1. McGaughey J, Alderdice F, Fowler R, Kapila A, Moutray M. (2007) Outreach and Early Warning Systems (EWS) for the prevention of Intensive Care admission admission and death of critically ill adult patients on general hospital wards (REVIEW). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3. art no CD005529

Navigating Evidence-Based Practice: A Presentation for Parents and Caregivers

Prevalence rates for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have increased dramatically, to the current estimation of 1 in 68 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014). The overall intention of this project is to develop a workshop for families, and caregivers, which will enhance awareness, the importance of evidence-based practice for individuals with ASD and provide local resources that are available. This project involves a literature review of ASDs, evidence-based practice (EBP) and how it affects both families and caregivers. The literature review attempted to answer the question, what are the most popular evidence-based practices and what are the benefits in parents understanding EBP for children with ASD that are currently being utilized today. The purpose of this project is to assist families and caregivers in making well-informed decisions involving the choice of treatments that will have the most positive impact on their children with ASD.

Evidence-Based Practice in PubMed: Are Shared Filters Useful to Health Sciences Academic Users?

Objectives In April 2010, the Université de Montréal’s Health Sciences Library has implemented shared filters in its institutional PubMed account. Most of these filters are designed to highlight resources for evidence-based practice, such as Clinical Queries, Systematic Reviews and Evidence-based Synopsis. We now want to measure how those filters are perceived and used by our users. Methods For one month, data was gathered through an online questionnaire proposed to users of Université de Montréal’s PubMed account. A print version was also distributed to participants in information literacy workshops given by the health sciences librarians. Respondents were restricted to users affiliated to Université de Montréal’s faculties of Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Sciences, Nursing and Pharmacy. Basic user information such as year/program of study or department affiliation was also collected. The questionnaire allowed users to identify the filters they use, assess the relevance of filters, and also suggest new ones. Results Survey results showed that the shared filters of Université de Montreal’s PubMed account were found useful by the majority of respondents. Filters allowing rapid access to secondary resources ranked among the most relevant (Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Practice Guidelines and Clinical Evidence). For Clinical Study Queries, Randomized Controlled Trial (Therapy/Narrow) was considered the most useful. Some new shared filters have been suggested by respondents. Finally, 18% of the respondents indicated that they did not quite understand the relevance of filters. Conclusion Based on the survey results, shared filters considered most useful will be kept, some will be enhanced and others removed so that suggested ones could be added. The fact that some respondents did not understand well the relevance of filters could potentially be addressed through our PubMed workshops, online library guides or by renaming some filters in a more meaningful way.

Research for Evidence Based Practice

Online animation resources