Implementation of sustainable evidence-based practice for the assessment and management of pain in residential aged care facilities

Pain is common in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). In 2005, the Australian Pain Society developed 27 recommendations for good practice in the identification, assessment, and management of pain in these settings. This study aimed to address implementation of the standards and evaluate outcomes. Five facilities in Australia participated in a comprehensive evaluation of RACF pain practice and outcomes. Pre-existing pain management practices were compared with the 27 recommendations, before an evidence-based pain management program was introduced that included training and education for staff and revised in-house pain-management procedures. Post-implementation audits evaluated the program's success. Aged care staff teams also were assessed on their reports of self-efficacy in pain management. The results show that before the implementation program, the RACFs demonstrated full compliance on 6 to 12 standards. By the project's completion, RACFs demonstrated full compliance with 10 to 23 standards and major improvements toward compliance in the remaining standards. After implementation, the staff also reported better understanding of the standards (p < .001) or of facility pain management guidelines (p < .001), increased confidence in therapies for pain management (p < .001), and increased confidence in their training to assess pain (p < .001) and recognize pain in residents with dementia who are nonverbal (p = .003). The results show that improved evidence-based practice in RACFs can be achieved with appropriate training and education. Investing resources in the aged care workforce via this implementation program has shown improvements in staff self-efficacy and practice.

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.

Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.

Evidence-based practice and information literacy

Evidence-based Practice (EBP) has recently emerged as a topic of discussion amongst professionals within the library and information services (LIS) industry. Simply stated, EBP is the process of using formal research skills and methods to assist in decision making and establishing best practice. The emerging interest in EBP within the library context serves to remind the library profession that research skills and methods can help ensure that the library industry remains current and relevant in changing times. The LIS sector faces ongoing challenges in terms of the expectation that financial and human resources will be managed efficiently, particularly if library budgets are reduced and accountability to the principal stakeholders is increased. Library managers are charged with the responsibility to deliver relevant and cost effective services, in an environment characterised by rapidly changing models of information provision, information access and user behaviours. Consequently they are called upon not only to justify the services they provide, or plan to introduce, but also to measure the effectiveness of these services and to evaluate the impact on the communities they serve. The imperative for innovation in and enhancements to library practice is accompanied by the need for a strong understanding of the processes of review, measurement, assessment and evaluation. In 2001 the Centre for Information Research was commissioned by the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) in the UK to conduct an examination into the research landscape for library and information science. The examination concluded that research is “important for the LIS [library and information science] domain in a number of ways” (McNicol & Nankivell, 2001, p.77). At the professional level, research can inform practice, assist in the future planning of the profession, raise the profile of the discipline, and indeed the reputation and standing of the library and information service itself. At the personal level, research can “broaden horizons and offer individuals development opportunities” (McNicol & Nankivell, 2001, p.77). The study recommended that “research should be promoted as a valuable professional activity for practitioners to engage in” (McNicol & Nankivell, 2001, p.82). This chapter will consider the role of EBP within the library profession. A brief review of key literature in the area is provided. The review considers issues of definition and terminology, highlights the importance of research in professional practice and outlines the research approaches that underpin EBP. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the specific application of EBP within the dynamic and evolving field of information literacy (IL).

Are library and information professionals ready for evidence based practice?

Evidence based practice (EBP) is recognised as a way of improving the quality of professional practice in many disciplines however its adoption within library and information sciences (LIS) has been gradual. The term was first introduced into the library and information profession‟s vocabulary a decade ago but an impediment to its uptake is the lack of clear understanding regarding how LIS practitioners understand the concept. Partridge, Thorpe, Edwards and Hallam (2007) identified the need to understand how LIS professionals experience or understand evidence based practice and proposed a model of four categories of experience to describe how LIS professionals experience EBP. This paper extends that framework by refining the different conceptions of evidence based practice and identifying relationships which exist between the categories of experience to provide a rich description of the EBP phenomenon. The paper also argues that the phrase “evidence based librarianship” and its variations be abandoned as practitioners do not see a distinction between EBP as applied to librarianship and information practice and industry specific jargon like “evidence based library and information practice”. This research will help current and future LIS practitioners, leaders and educators engage more actively in the establishment of an evidence based culture to improve library and information practice in Australia and internationally.

Challenges in implementing evidence-based practice into mental health services

This paper highlights challenges in implementing mental health policy at a service delivery level. It describes an attempt to foster greater application of recovery-orientated principles and practices within mental health services. Notwithstanding a highly supportive policy environment, strong support from service administrators, and an enthusiastic staff response to training, application of the training and support tools was weaker than anticipated. This paper evaluates the dissemination trial against key elements to promote sustained adoption of innovations. Organisational and procedural changes are required before mental health policies are systematically implemented in practice.

Testing the effectiveness of a Practice Development intervention on changing the culture of evidence based practice in an acute care environment

In this age of evidence-based practice, nurses are increasingly expected to use research evidence in a systematic and judicious way when making decisions about patient care practices. Clinicians recognise the role of research when it provides valid, realistic answers in practical situations. Nonetheless, research is still perceived by some nurses as external to practice and implementing research findings into practice is often difficult. Since its conceptual platform in the 1960s, the emergence and growth of Nursing Development Units, and later, Practice Development Units has been described in the literature as strategic, organisational vehicles for changing the way nurses think about nursing by promoting and supporting a culture of inquiry and research-based practice. Thus, some scholars argue that practice development is situated in the gap between research and practice. Since the 1990s, the discourse has shifted from the structure and outcomes of developing practice to the process of developing practice, using a Practice Development methodology; underpinned by critical social science theory, as a vehicle for changing the culture and context of care. The nursing and practice development literature is dominated by descriptive reports of local practice development activity, typically focusing on reflection on processes or outcomes of processes, and describing perceived benefits. However, despite the volume of published literature, there is little published empirical research in the Australian or international context on the effectiveness of Practice Development as a methodology for changing the culture and context of care - leaving a gap in the literature. The aim of this study was to develop, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a Practice Development model for clinical practice review and change on changing the culture and context of care for nurses working in an acute care setting. A longitudinal, pre-test/post-test, non-equivalent control group design was used to answer the following research questions: 1. Is there a relationship between nurses' perceptions of the culture and context of care and nurses' perceptions of research and evidence-based practice? 2. Is there a relationship between engagement in a facilitated process of Practice Development and change in nurses' perceptions of the culture and context of care? 3. Is there a relationship between engagement in a facilitated process of Practice Development and change in nurses' perceptions of research and evidence-based practice? Through a critical analysis of the literature and synthesis of the findings of past evaluations of Nursing and Practice Development structures and processes, this research has identified key attributes consistent throughout the chronological and theoretical development of Nursing and Practice Development that exemplify a culture and context of care that is conducive to creating a culture of inquiry and evidence-based practice. The study findings were then used in the development, validation and testing of an instrument to measure change in the culture and context of care. Furthermore, this research has also provided empirical evidence of the relationship of the key attributes to each other and to barriers to research and evidence-based practice. The research also provides empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of a Practice Development methodology in changing the culture and context of care. This research is noteworthy in its contribution to advancing the discipline of nursing by providing evidence of the degree to which attributes of the culture and context of care, namely autonomy and control, workplace empowerment and constructive team dynamics, can be connected to engagement with research and evidence-based practice.

Developing a culture of enquiry to sustain evidence-based practice

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is having a significant effect on the health service environment. It constructs a language that bridges the healthcare disciplines and the clinical and managerial components of health services. Most experienced clinicians in nursing, medicine and allied health now recognise that the contemporary healthcare environment calls for our practice to be justified by sound, credible evidence. There is pressure on all clinicians to accommodate innovation, while at the same time ensuring their practice is effective, safe and efficient (Forbes & Griffiths 2002). Consequently, EBP in healthcare is having a profound effect on nursing and the way we think about nursing. There are many available models for research utilisation that are dependent on organisational strategies for change. This chapter describes the relationship between organisation and culture, and explores the notion of cultural change; that is, developing a culture of inquiry that can sustain evidence-based practice. We begin this chapter with a clear conception of what we mean by EBP and what we mean by ‘culture’.

Evidence-based practice : information professionals' experience of information literacy in the workplace

Evidence-based practice is increasingly being recognised as an important issue in a range of professional contexts including education, nursing, occupational therapy and librarianship. Many of these professions have observed a relationship or interface between evidence-based practice and information literacy. Using a phenomenographic approach this research explores variation in the how library and information professionals are experiencing evidence-based practice as part of their professional work. The findings of the research provide a basis for arguing that evidence-based practice represents the professional's enactment of information literacy in the workplace.

Evidence-based practice

Introduction This chapter traces the history of evidence-based practice from its roots in evidence-based medicine to contemporary thinking about the usefulness of such an approach to practice. It defines evidence-based practice and differentiates it from terms such as evidence-based medicine, evidence-based policy and evidence-based healthcare. As evidence-based practice is concerned with identifying ‘good evidence’, this chapter will first describe the nature and production of knowledge, as it is important to understand the subjective nature of knowledge and the research process. The chapter considers the necessary skills for evidence-based practice, and discusses the processes of attaining the necessary evidence and its limitations. We examine the barriers and facilitators to identifying and implementing ‘best practice’ and when evidence-based practice is appropriate to use. The chapter concludes with a discussion about the limitations of evidence-based practice and the potential use of other sources of information to guide practice.

Evidence-based practice

This chapter traces the history of evidence-based practice (EBP) from its roots in evidence-based medicine to contemporary thinking about the usefulness of such an approach to public health practice. It defines EBP and differentiates it from terms such as evidence-based medicine, evidence-based policy and evidence-based health care. As EBP is concerned with identifying ‘good evidence’, this chapter will briefly describe the nature and production of knowledge, as it is important to understand the subjective nature of knowledge and the research process. This chapter considers the necessary skills for EBP, and discusses the processes of attaining the necessary evidence and its limitations. We examine the barriers and facilitators to identifying and implementing ‘best practice’, and when EBP is appropriate to use. There is a discussion about the limitations of EBP and the potential use of other sources of information to guide practice, and concluding information about the application of evidence to guide policy and practice.