Turning Knowledge Into Action at the Point‐of‐Care: The Collective Experience of Nurses Facilitating the Implementation of Evidence‐Based Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Facilitation is considered a way of enabling clinicians to implement evidence into practice by problem solving and providing support. Practice development is a well-established movement in the United Kingdom that incorporates the use of facilitators, but in Canada, the role is more obtuse. Few investigations have observed the process of facilitation as described by individuals experienced in guideline implementation in North America. AIM: To describe the tacit knowledge regarding facilitation embedded in the experiences of nurses implementing evidence into practice. METHODS: Twenty nurses from across Canada were purposively selected to attend an interactive knowledge translation symposium to examine what has worked and what has not in implementing evidence in practice. This study is an additional in-depth analysis of data collected at the symposium that focuses on facilitation as an intervention to enhance evidence uptake. Critical incident technique was used to elicit examples to examine the nurses' facilitation experiences. Participants shared their experiences with one another and completed initial data analysis and coding collaboratively. The data were further thematically analyzed using the qualitative inductive approach of constant comparison. RESULTS: A number of factors emerged at various levels associated with the successes and failures of participants' efforts to facilitate evidence-based practice. Successful implementation related to: (a) focus on a priority issue, (b) relevant evidence, (c) development of strategic partnerships, (d) the use of multiple strategies to effect change, and (e) facilitator characteristics and approach. Negative factors influencing the process were: (a) poor engagement or ownership, (b) resource deficits, (c) conflict, (d) contextual issues, and (e) lack of evaluation and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Factors at the individual, environmental, organizational, and cultural level influence facilitation of evidence-based practice in real situations at the point-of-care. With a greater understanding of factors contributing to successful or unsuccessful facilitation, future research should focus on analyzing facilitation interventions tailored to address barriers and enhance facilitators of evidence uptake.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".