Impact of a Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) on Nursing Policy and Practice.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, our healthcare system created a hospital Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to support the local delivery of high-quality, safe and high value patient care. Since then, the importance of healthcare staff work life has also been highlighted, and together these four elements form the Quadruple Aim framework. Synergistic to this Aim, the Magnet® program promotes and recognizes organizational nursing excellence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the EPC's work to inform nursing policy and practice in support of the goals of the Quadruple Aim framework and Magnet® designation. METHODS: Methods used included the following: (1) descriptive analysis of the hospital EPC's database of rapid reviews; and (2) administration of a 40-item electronic questionnaire to nurses who requested an EPC review during fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2016. RESULTS: Of 308 rapid reviews completed in the EPC's first 10 years, 59 (19%) addressed nursing topics. The proportion of reviews relevant to nursing increased from 5% (2/39) in the center's first 2 years to 44% (25/60) in FY 2015-2016. The majority of nursing reviews (39/59) examined processes of care. Of 23 nurses eligible to participate in the survey, 21 responded (91%). Nurses with administrative or managerial responsibilities requested 70% of reviews; clinical nurse specialists and bedside nurses requested 17% and 9%, respectively. Reviews were used to support clinical program development (48%), provide clinical guidance (33%), update nursing policies or procedures (24%) and develop training and curricula (24%). Nurses were satisfied with the hospital EPC reviews (mean; 4.7/5), and 95% indicated they were likely to request a future review. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: A dedicated hospital EPC in partnership with nursing offers a unique mechanism for promoting a culture of evidence-based practice. Nurses at all organizational levels use the services of a hospital EPC to inform nursing policy and practice and are highly satisfied with the process, supporting the Quadruple Aim and Magnet® designation.

Expediting patient appointments with dermatology rapid access clinics.

BACKGROUND: Lengthy wait times for dermatology appointments in the U.S. limit care access. The University of Pennsylvania's Department of Dermatology has established an urgent care clinic (UCC) and an intermediate care clinic (ICC) to expedite appointments for higher acuity patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe our rapid access clinics' operations, referral patterns, and distributions of diagnoses. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of dermatology consult order and appointment data for UCC, ICC, and routine care to determine the number of orders, consult appointments, and follow-up appointments; appointment wait times; and frequencies of diagnoses in referring provider and consult appointments. Press Ganey patient satisfaction ratings were also analyzed. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) wait times for UCC, ICC, and routine care, appointments were 3 (1-8) days, 36 (15-64) days, and 45 (12-97) days, respectively (P<0.001). The proportion of referrals originating from subspecialists varied among UCC (47.6%), ICC (20.2%) and routine care (15.8%), (P<0.001). Distributions of diagnoses differed among UCC, ICC, and routine care. Ratings for most satisfaction metrics were similar across clinic settings. CONCLUSIONS: Dermatology rapid access clinics within an academic medical center can reduce wait times for higher acuity patients while maintaining patient satisfaction.

Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making.

BACKGROUND: Hospital evidence-based practice centers (EPCs) synthesize and disseminate evidence locally, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of a hospital EPC serving a large academic healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Descriptive analysis of the EPC's database of rapid systematic reviews since EPC inception (July 2006-June 2014), and survey of report requestors from the EPC's last 4 fiscal years. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive analyses examined requestor and report characteristics; questionnaire examined report usability, impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on 5-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement). RESULTS: The EPC completed 249 evidence reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), and care processes (12%, n = 31). Mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last 4 fiscal years for 65 requestors. Of the 64 eligible participants, 46 responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered promptly (mean = 4.4), answered the questions posed (mean = 4.3), and informed their final decision (mean = 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of evidence synthesis activities by a hospital EPC in the United States. Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence local decision making.