Evaluation of an evidence-based practice mentorship programme in a paediatric quaternary care setting

Abstract

Background Evidence-based practice (EBP) is essential for clinical decision-making, improving care, reducing costs and achieving optimal patient outcomes. The Evidence-based Practice Mentorship Program (EBPMP) is a flexible, self-directed programme whereby participants carry out EBP projects guided by expert mentors. Aims To evaluate EBPMP effectiveness and participant experience. Methods To evaluate effectiveness, as measured by changes in EBP value, knowledge and implementation, participants completed pre- and post-EBPMP Quick-EBP-Value, Implementation and Knowledge (VIK) surveys. To understand participants’ experiences individual and group interviews were conducted at the end of the programme and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Most participants were over 50 years old, Caucasian, inpatient staff nurses, baccalaureate prepared, with over 11 years’ experience. Statistically significant improvements were observed in the post Quick-EBP-VIK knowledge and implementation domains. Individual and group participant interviews revealed four categories of importance to the experience: 1. perceived benefits of EBP, 2. time as a barrier to EBP, 3. desire for more cohort interaction and 4. positive mentee–mentor experience. Conclusions EBPMP can improve participants’ knowledge and implementation of EBP in an environment that values EBP; however, opportunities exist to implement programme modifications that address barriers identified by participants including project time and increased participant interactions.

Instruments for assessing healthcare professionals' knowledge and skills of evidence‐based practice: A scoping review

“…Reliability was not assessed in three studies (Bajracharya et al, 2019; Dao et al, 2018; McCluskey, 2003). Belowska et al (2020) and Schuler et al (2021) reported that this has been confirmed in a previous study. Validity was confirmed using content (Dao et al, 2018; Filippini et al, 2011; Fu et al, 2020; Majid et al, 2011) and construct validity (Fu et al, 2020).…”

“…The studies were conducted in 17 countries: 12 in the USA (Brown et al, 2009; Ginex et al, 2021; Jette et al, 2003; Koehn & Lehman, 2008; Maydick‐Youngberg et al, 2021; Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020; Nickles et al, 2019; Schuler et al, 2021; White‐Williams et al, 2013; Williamson et al, 2015; Wonder et al, 2017), four in Iran (Azmoude et al, 2017; Heydari et al, 2014; Seyyedrasooli et al, 2012; Shafiei et al, 2014), three in Brazil (Claudino et al, 2019; Schneider et al, 2020; Silva et al, 2015) and China (Fu et al, 2020; Yue et al, 2018; Zhou et al, 2016), two each in Oman (Al‐Busaidi et al, 2019; Ammouri et al, 2014), Saudi Arabia (Alqahtani et al, 2020; Alshehri et al, 2017), Finland (Koota et al, 2021; Lunden et al, 2021) and Spain (Pérez‐Campos et al, 2014; Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2021), one each in Nepal (Bajracharya et al, 2019), Poland (Belowska et al, 2020), Vietnam (Dao et al, 2018), Italy (Filippini et al, 2011), Singapore (Majid et al, 2011), Greece (Patelarou et al, 2017), Colombia (Ramírez‐Vélez et al, 2015), Jordania (Salah & Abu‐Moghli, 2020) and Australia (McCluskey, 2003).…”

“…Reviewing practice is based on clinical experience and professional judgement (Yue et al, 2018). Identification and naming clinical questions in practice means identifying clinical issues and problems (Majid et al, 2011; Nickles et al, 2019), analysing clinical problems (Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2021) and converting information needs into well‐formulated research questions (Al‐Busaidi et al, 2019; Ammouri et al, 2014; Azmoude et al, 2017; Belowska et al, 2020; Brown et al, 2009; Lunden et al, 2021; Majid et al, 2011; Maydick‐Youngberg et al, 2021; Salah & Abu‐Moghli, 2020; Schneider et al, 2020; Shafiei et al, 2014; Zhou et al, 2016), clinical questions (Majid et al, 2011) or PICO questions (Dao et al, 2018; Fu et al, 2020; Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020; Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2021; Schuler et al, 2021; Yue et al, 2018). The purpose of naming questions is to improve the quality of care.…”

“…Healthcare professionals need to be aware of and be able to identify information types and sources (Al‐Busaidi et al, 2019; Ammouri et al, 2014; Azmoude et al, 2017; Belowska et al, 2020; Brown et al, 2009; Dao et al, 2018; Lunden et al, 2021; Maydick‐Youngberg et al, 2021; McCluskey, 2003; Salah & Abu‐Moghli, 2020; Schneider et al, 2020; Shafiei et al, 2014; Zhou et al, 2016), as well as have knowledge of how to obtain evidence (Al‐Busaidi et al, 2019; Ammouri et al, 2014; Azmoude et al, 2017; Bajracharya et al, 2019; Brown et al, 2009; Jette et al, 2003; Lunden et al, 2021; Maydick‐Youngberg et al, 2021; Salah & Abu‐Moghli, 2020; Schneider et al, 2020; Shafiei et al, 2014; Zhou et al, 2016). The requirement to conduct online searches using databases is highlighted in several instruments (Bajracharya et al, 2019; Belowska et al, 2020; Fu et al, 2020; Ginex et al, 2021; Jette et al, 2003; Majid et al, 2011; Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020; Nickles et al, 2019; Patelarou et al, 2017; Ramírez‐Vélez et al, 2015; Schuler et al, 2021; Silva et al, 2015; Yue et al, 2018), and the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PEDro, Pubmed and Google are mentioned. Also, knowledge about databases was investigated (Alshehri et al, 2017; Ginex et al, 2021; Jette et al, 2003; Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020; Ramírez‐Vélez et al, 2015; Yue et al, 2018).…”

“…Healthcare personnel need to have the ability to determine how valid the material is, meaning close to the truth (Al‐Busaidi et al, 2019; Ammouri et al, 2014; Azmoude et al, 2017; Belowska et al, 2020; Brown et al, 2009; Lunden et al, 2021; Maydick‐Youngberg et al, 2021; Salah & Abu‐Moghli, 2020; Schneider et al, 2020; Shafiei et al, 2014; Zhou et al, 2016), to determine tools for quality assessment (Fu et al, 2020; Majid et al, 2011; Yue et al, 2018) and methodological quality of a specific article (Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2021). They need to know the focus of appraisal, such as the application of intervention (Majid et al, 2011), individual studies (Nickles et al, 2019), especially quantitative and qualitative studies (Ramos‐Morcillo et al, 2021; Schuler et al, 2021), practice recommendations, guidelines (Majid et al, 2011; Nickles et al, 2019) and strength of evidence (Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020; Nickles et al, 2019). Healthcare professionals must have the skills to share evidence with colleagues (Al‐Busaidi et al, 2019; Ammouri et al, 2014; Azmoude et al, 2017; Lunden et al, 2021; Maydick‐Youngberg et al, 2021; Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020; Salah & Abu‐Moghli, 2020; Schneider et al, 2020; Shafiei et al, 2014; Silva et al, 2015; Zhou et al, 2016), team members, managers (Fu et al, 2020) and policymakers (Ginex et al, 2021; Melnyk et al, 2018, 2020) by choosing effective ways of doing so (Fu et al, 2020; Yue et al, 2018).…”