Evidence-Based Practice

Evidence-BasedPractice

Medicalprofessionals work in a dynamic environment that requires theircritical and informed input. The setting exposes them to variousmodels of practice that aid them in addressing emerging healthproblems. The sensitivity of their occupation requires them to applytreatment methods that are empirically tested. To achieve thisobjective, effective devices and procedures are invented on a rollingbasis. According to Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005), Researchforms a vital component of the nursing practice. Its role is toascertain the output of procedures and equipment. Professionals referto the approach as . Over the years, the ideahas gained popularity over other conventional treatment methods forits capacity to achieve the projected objectives (Melnyk &ampFineout-Overholt, 2005). Moreover, it upholds patient-centered caresince it involves the use of validated treatment approaches todifferent categories of patients.

Evidencebased practice gained popularity in the 60s and 70s through the workof Archie Cochrane, a British epidemiologist. He promoted the use ofscientific practices and he invented the Cochrane Database ofSystematic Reviews. According to Reynolds (2008), the purpose ofevidence-based nursing is to provide quality services to patients. Italso aims at contributing to the highest standards of health. Thetechniques demands nurses to exploit the models developed forspecific settings intensively. The ideology fits in the nursingpractice since it requires the support of the basic training andskills. The finesses include effective communication, criticalthinking, empathy and situational analysis (Reynolds, 2008). Evidencechanges regularly in a contemporary health environment. Reynolds(2008) agrees that EBP is a process rather than an end to a nursingprocess. It enables nurses to switch from the conventional methods tothe new and effective approaches.

Evidence-BasedPractice in professional nursing involves various supportiveprinciples. Its implementation requires the application of credibleevidence in specific client conditions. The intrinsic training thatthe nurses have and the exposure to various conditions assists themto identify gaps and make proposals for change (Melnyk &ampFineout-Overholt, 2005). The imbalance in knowledge triggers theformulation of questions and the conduction of extensive literaturesearch. Secondly, the information gathered advises the codificationof a model that is pre-tested before being commissioned into thenursing practice. The professionals also consider the values ofspecific groups of clients and symphonize them in the proposedremedy.

Asa systematic process, EBP integrates several systematic steps. First,nurses form an inquiry to a clinical situation that they believe tobe insufficiently provided for by the existing practices. Thequestions can be arrived at through brainstorming, observation orcomparing different health care settings (Melnyk &ampFineout-Overholt, 2005). According to Rousseau and Gunia (2016),cultivating an inquisitive workforce requires an autonomous team thatshares information freely. A problem observed by a majority of thenurses in a workplace receives a strong backup. Secondly, Nursingresearchers compile information from diverse sources. The datagathered is usually validated in various health settings and approvedby the relevant nursing authorities. Therefore, the consequent dataminimizes the need for further testing.

Thecompiled information contributes to the development of a model thatnurses appraise before integrating it into their practice. Theadministrative sections of hospitals commit enough resources for asmooth transition and assimilation of the proposed strategy. Inaddition, EBP involves acquiring feedback from the clinical settingsduring the implementation stages of a recommended practice. Accordingto Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005), the information derived fromthe process guides the professionals in polishing the ineffectiveparts of the application. A significant number of practitionersoverlook evaluation as the last and imperative step in EBP. Therating assesses successful implementation and ascendance of the EBPin the nursing practice. The results advise on the perpetuation ofthe approach or recommend its overhaul.

EvidenceBased Practice presents assorted benefits to the nursing profession. According to Rousseau and Gunia (2016), it assists nurses in makingeffective decisions on patients’ conditions. The options theysettle for are usually backed by research and they involve easysystematic procedures (Rousseau and Gunia, 2016). The procedures savethe time spent attending clients and one practitioner can heed to theneeds of an additional number of sick people. It is also easy tomonitor clients’ health by adhering to the strategies.

Secondly,EBP keeps Nurses updated on the most current practices. The newknowledge gathered in EBP requires practitioners to acquaintthemselves with the recommended practice before assimilating theminto their daily routine (Reynolds, 2008). It, therefore, becomes alearning process. Reynolds (2008) provides that, most of thelicensing and regulating authorities require medical workers to gothrough a continuous learning process to stay current. The objectiveis to facilitate patient-centered care through the introduction ofhealth procedures that address emerging illnesses. The knowledge gapsand consequent corrective measures are indispensable tools forcontinuing learning.

Besidessupporting nursing education, EBP reduces the cost of healthservices. The current health environment is marked by an increasednumber of patients suffering from lifestyle disease. On average, theburden of health has increased. EBP identifies unfulfilled needs inpatients and the most effective methods of addressing withoutstretching the available resources further (Melnyk &ampFineout-Overholt, 2005). Integration of the efficient methods savestime, resources and improves the services rendered to clients.Nevertheless, offering quality services at reduced costs demands aconstant review and evaluation of the existing and newly adoptedmethods to record the variances.

However,the merits cannot be idealized without a significant investment inresearch, training, assimilation of knowledge and evaluation.Operating on stringent budgets is a primary challenge facing healthinstitutions. Besides, government funded organizations may take longbefore such proposals are approved by the funding committees (Carlson&amp Staffileno, 2013). At the basic level, some healthorganizations are more endowed than others. Lack of adequateresources results in a varied implementation of the best practices asendorsed by research.

Secondly,introducing futuristic praxis in a health environment necessitatesthe input of different stakeholders. The nurses in the clinicalsetting identify the gaps and they trigger the interests of theadministration and researchers (Carlson &amp Staffileno, 2013).Regulatory bodies ascertain the application of the identified methodsin hospitals while individual institutions evaluate the changesbrought about by the contemporary strategies. The laxity of onestakeholder can affect the projected outcomes.

Thepoor support for attested techniques is not limited to lack ofimplemented funds. According to Carlson and Staffileno (2013), somenursing professionals and leaders are skeptical of the capacity ofthe newfangled procedures to outsmart the decorous models. Theybecome saboteurs to the techniques. The problem exacerbates when theyare part of the critical decision making process.

Thereare diverse methods of countering these challenges. First, theobjectives of health institutions should support research, innovationand interaction of new practices. Besides, the administrations of thedifferent institution should set aside adequate resources to supportEBP (Carlson &amp Staffileno, 2013). Health organizations gatherinformation and conduct controlled tests before commissioning thepractices to different settings. The institutions bear the role ofassimilating the proposed practices in their schedules. When ablanket organization conducts the study and validation, its costreduces significantly.

Besides,the input of key collaborators in the medical practice is criticalfor the achievement of the outlined goals. Consequently, all shouldact in the best interest of the patients. Effective communication andfeedback are importunate to engage them. A successful implementationof a model and resultant desirable outcomes provoke interest in thestakeholders to support other substantiated strategies.

Inconclusion, EBP continues to improve the nursing practice by devisingefficient methods that are pragmatically ascertained. The sensitivityof the health work demands techniques that are devoid of trials. EBPalso helps in abridging the cost of health by reducing the time thatnurses spend while attending clients. It also introduces treatmentmodels that are short but comprehensive. Moreover, thte practicekeeps the health workers current and habituates them with the extantcovenances. However, inadequate resource, lack of goodwill from thecollaborators and skeptic nurse leaders impede the assimilation ofEBP in healthcare settings. To counter this, all stakeholders mustcommunicate and air their conjectures at the different stages ofquestion formulation, gathering data, testing, integration andevaluation. Individual institutions should also set aside adequateresources and cultivate a promotive environment to support EBP.

References

Carlson,E. A., &amp Staffileno, B. A. (2013). Establishing and sustaining anevidence-based practice environment. Researchfor advanced practice nurses, from evidence to practice,69-86.

Melnyk,B. M., &amp Fineout-Overholt, E. (2005). Making the case forevidence-based practice. MelnykBM, Fineout-Overholt E. Evidence-based practice in nursing &amphealthcare. A guide to best practice. Philadelphia: LippincotWilliams &amp Wilkins,3-24.

Reynolds,S. (2008). Evidence-basedpractice: a critical appraisal.L. Trinder (Ed.). John Wiley &amp Sons.

Rousseau,D. M., &amp Gunia, B. C. (2016). : ThePsychology of EBP Implementation. AnnualReview of Psychology,67,667-692.