Clinical Nurse Specialists’ Role in Promoting Evidence Based Practice in Saskatchewan’s Health Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nursing is a practice discipline and patients expect nurses will use the best evidence available to improve outcomes. A major challenge to the implementation of best practice is the complexity of organizational and social environments in which nurses’ work. One method to keep nurses informed of best practice is to employ change agents; nurses with clinical expertise and familiarity with research who can transfer the evidence to those in clinical settings. It has been suggested that the clinical nurse specialist (CNS), as an educator, consultant, clinical expert, researcher, and leader is well situated to promote evidence-based practice in the workplace. Purpose: The purpose of this explanatory mixed methods study is to gain a deeper understanding of the CNS role, as it pertains to promoting evidence-based practice. The research question guiding this research is: What is the role of the CNS in promoting evidence-based practice in acute care and community settings in Saskatchewan? Methods: This study used Creswell and Plano Clark’s sequential explanatory mixed methods design that focused on an initial collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by a collection and analysis of qualitative data. The survey data was analyzed using SPSS 18. The transcribed interviews were reviewed for recurrent themes regarding the CNSs’ role in promoting evidence-based practice. The PARiHS framework provided the broad structure to identify themes. Interpretive description was used to analyze the themes. Findings: To carry out their role as facilitators of EBP, CNSs rely on their: master’s preparation, clinical expertise, and people/communication skills. In order to streamline processes to increase efficiencies, share their expert knowledge with staff and patients, and provide leadership, CNSs need to work in supportive contexts and have access to high quality evidence. The primary source of written evidence used by CNSs was the internet at work and the primary source of “people” evidence was the CNS’s personal experience. Lack of role clarity and leadership were barriers to carrying out their roles in an effective manner. Conclusion: CNSs can improve patient outcomes by using best evidence in the provision of care, but to do so, they need to work in supportive contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".