MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399857543 · doi:10.12688/mep.20116.1

A case study on the assessment of sustaining evidence-based practice changes and outcomes using the Nursing Quality Indicators for Reporting and Evaluation® (NQuIRE®) data system

2024· article· en· W4399857543 on OpenAlex
Shanoja Naik, Maureen Loft, Maricris Autea, Christina Medeiros, Shina Singla, Sunghoo Paul Kim, Fatima Shire, Heather McConnell, Doris Grinspun

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsSustainabilityBest practiceFidelitySustainability reportingQuality (philosophy)Process managementQuality managementKnowledge translationMedicineManagement scienceComputer scienceKnowledge managementBusinessEngineeringOperations managementManagement systemPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> Background In 2003, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) established the Best Practice Spotlight Organization <ns3:sup>®</ns3:sup> (BPSO <ns3:sup>®</ns3:sup> ) designation, a pivotal knowledge translation strategy. This initiative aimed to support the Best Practice Guidelines (BPGs) implementation, enable rapid learning and sustainability of evidence-based practice changes. Evaluating the sustainability of evidence-based practice changes is crucial for fidelity of the BPG implementation. Despite existing strategies to acknowledge sustained improvements in practices, there are currently no clear criteria or guidelines available for evaluating sustainability. This article introduces a systematic approach to evaluate the sustainability of BPG implementation outcomes. Methods A mixed methods approach is used to develop criteria to evaluate the sustainability of practice changes and outcomes associated with BPG implementation. This process aims to guide future data reporting frequencies by BPSOs. This approach includes collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative data from BPSOs; conducting an environmental scan to determine any existing methods to assess sustainability; and facilitating internal and external expert discussions to provide feedback on the proposed criteria. Results A numerical measure is developed to estimate the number of observations or data submission months required for achieving data saturation and stability or sample size adequacy. A case study is conducted to illustrate the application of the proposed method based on data collected during the implementation of the <ns3:italic>Assessment and Management of Pain</ns3:italic> (2013) BPG at an acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada illustrates sustainability of the following practice change and related outcome: consistent pain assessments by healthcare providers and improved patient satisfaction with pain management. Conclusions Monitoring sustainability is a crucial step in BPG implementation. Optimized reporting informs resource allocation and changes to implementation activities. The case study underscores the benefits of using control charts for evaluating practice sustainability and facilitating meaningful data collection by BPSOs for quality improvement. </ns3:p>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.152
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.152
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.825
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.132 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it