Implementing Best Practice Guidelines under the Best Practice Spotlight Organisation: Facilitators and Barriers for Nurses: A Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation and sustainability of evidence-based practice (EBP) is a complex process. Best practice guidelines (BPGs) can facilitate the translation of knowledge from theory into practice, but they require working groups to adapt recommendations and encourage adherence to them. The aim of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers of BPGs in the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario®, within the framework of Best Practice Spotlight Organisations® (BPSOs®), in a hospital setting. Methods: This study was conducted using the modified Delphi method (two rounds) with a cohort of BPSO® Best Practice Champions. The facilitators and barriers included in the first round were identified through a bibliographic search. The degree of concordance was determined in the second round using the highest mean resulting values. Results: A total of 44 nurses responded, with a mean age of 42.57 ± 8.563. The facilitators included the following: work environment; working in a hospital that encourages research; and dedicating time to EBP (p < 0.001). The barriers included the following: excessive workload; professional mobility (p < 0.001); and lack of time (p = 0.002). Implications for practice: As such, it is necessary to approach human resource management by implementing new policies that guarantee systemic sustainability. The BPSO® programme is an excellent framework for promoting the translation of theoretical knowledge into practice and effecting institutional change.
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 | 0.070 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".