Testing of the Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' knowledge and skills for evidence-based practice (EBP) and organizational climate are important for science-based care. There is scant literature regarding aligning organizational culture with EBP implementation and even less for unit and organizational culture. The Nursing EBP Survey examines individual, unit, and organizational factors to better understand registered nurses' (RN) self-reported EBP. AIMS: Establish and confirm factor loading, reliability, and discriminant validity for the untested Nursing EBP Survey. METHODS: The study employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey design and was targeted for RNs. The setting included 14 hospitals and 680 medical offices in Southern California. The 1999 instrument consisted of 22 items; 7 items were added in 2005 for 29 items. The questionnaire used a 5 point, Likert-type scale. The survey website opened in November 2016 and closed after 23 weeks. Psychometric testing and factor determination used parallel analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and ANOVA post hoc comparisons. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and eighty-one RNs completed the survey. All factor loadings in the CFA model were positive and significant (p < .001). All standardized loadings ranged from .70 to .94. The covariance estimate between Factor 1 and Factor 2 was marginally significant (p = .07). All other covariances and error variances were significant (p < .001). Final factor names were Practice Climate (Factor 1), Data Collection (Factor 2), Evidence Appraisal (Factor 3), Implementation (Factor 4), and Access to Evidence (Factor 5). Four of 5 factors showed significant differences between education levels (p < .05 level). All factors showed significant differences (p < .05) between inpatient and ambulatory staff, with higher scores for inpatient settings. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and skills for EBP vary. The 2019 Nursing EBP survey offers RNs direction to plan and support improvement in evidence-based outcomes and tailors future EBP initiatives.

[The electronic use of the NANDA-, NOC- and NIC- classifications and implications for nursing practice]. / Die elektronische Anwendung der NANDA-, NOC- und NIC-Klassifikationen und Folgerungen für die Pflegepraxis.

The data model developed on behalf of the Nursing Service Commission of the Canton of Zurich (Pflegedienstkommission des Kantons Zürich) is based on the NANDA nursing diagnoses, the Nursing Outcome Classification, and the Nursing Intervention Classification (NNN Classifications). It also includes integrated functions for cost-centered accounting, service recording, and the Swiss Nursing Minimum Data Set. The data model uses the NNN classifications to map a possible form of the nursing process in the electronic patient health record, where the nurse can choose nursing diagnoses, outcomes, and interventions relevant to the patient situation. The nurses' choice is guided both by the different classifications and their linkages, and the use of specific text components pre-defined for each classification and accessible through the respective linkages. This article describes the developed data model and illustrates its clinical application in a specific patient's situation. Preparatory work required for the implementation of NNN classifications in practical nursing such as content filtering and the creation of linkages between the NNN classifications are described. Against the background of documentation of the nursing process based on the DAPEP(1) data model, possible changes and requirements are deduced. The article provides a contribution to the discussion of a change in documentation of the nursing process by implementing nursing classifications in electronic patient records.

Claiming our core: appraising qualitative evidence for nursing questions about human response and meaning.

The growing acceptance of evidence-based practice (EBP) principles in nursing raises the possibility that only question domains central to medical practice--therapy, harm, prognosis, and medical diagnosis--and "best evidence" appropriate to those domains will be valued. We propose incorporation of 2 additional question domains--human response and meaning--as particularly important for nursing practice, and we argue that the strongest evidence for these questions arises from qualitative research traditions. We discuss the evaluation and application of qualitative evidence for practice and identify unresolved issues for further discussion within the discipline.