Re:Topic 2 DQ 2
It is my opinion that a major issue in addressing a solution to evidence-based practice is the vast amount of evidence that must be sifted through in order to implement it into practice in the first place. In one of the assigned readings this week, Majid et al., (2011) agree, relating that “It is estimated that 8,000 articles relevant to family practice are published monthly, and a family medicine practitioner would need to dedicate approximately 20 hours a day to stay abreast of new evidence” (pg. 230). Translating that to something such as medical-surgical nursing, one can clearly see how overwhelming it can be just to stay current with evidence, let alone implement it. With the speed that medical technology is always changing, by the time one piece of evidence is implemented, it is very possible it is outdated, and another piece of evidence is already more relevant.
This is certainly not an easy issue to resolve. By its very nature, medicine must change in order to provide safe, effective care. Conditions that used to be terminal at diagnosis (HIV, COPD, CHF, etc.) have now become chronic, in large part due to evidence, and evidence-based practice. I think the first step that must be taken is to educate practitioners on how to research and sift through evidence in the first place. Obviously, none of us can spend 20 hours a day reading research, and not all research is going to be relevant to everyone’s practice. Practitioners must be trained to sift through large volumes of evidence effectively to find what is relevant to their specialty. Research courses should be included in all nursing curricula, from LVN/LPN to the doctoral level. We cannot expect nurses to implement evidence without learning how. An expectation such as that would be like expecting a nurse to insert a Foley or start an IV without first learning how; it would simply not be safe.
Majid, S., et al. (2011). Adopting evidence-based practice in clinical decision making: Nurses’ perceptions, knowledge, and barriers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99(3): 229-236.