Now that you have considered the evidence and potential options to address the local site problem and project objectives, it is now time to describe the proposed design of your project, specific detai

The final phase of the PET process is translation, the value-added ste\ p in evidence-based practice. Translation leads to a change in practice, processes, or systems and in the resulting outcomes. Through transla- tion, the EBP team assesses the best evidence recommendations iden- tified in the Evidence phase for transferability to a desired practice\ setting; followed by implementation, evaluation, and communication of practice changes. This chapter covers the Translation phase of the PET process and will: ■ Examine evidence criteria that determine recommendation(s) for implementation ■ Review organization-specific considerations essential to translation of best evidence ■ Specify the components of an action plan ■ Identify steps in implementing and evaluating a practice change 8 Translation8 Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

190 Implementation of best evidence is the primary reason to conduct an evid\ ence review. Critically appraising, rating, and grading existing evidence and makin\ g practice recommendations requires one set of skills; translation require\ s another.

The EBP process requires both critical thinking and clinical reasoning. \ Critical thinking, a key skill or process integral for clinical reasoning, is kno\ wledge- based and is not dependent on the specific patient, situation, or envi\ ronment (Victor-Chmil, 2013). While critical thinking is an essential component of the\ Evidence phase of the PET process, clinical reasoning is the essential c\ omponent of the Translation phase. Clinical reasoning, a set of cognitive processes, requ\ ires clinicians to identify the relevance of the evidence and knowledge to a \ particular patient, situation, or setting. Thus, the EBP team engages in clinical r\ easoning to evaluate the relevance of the best evidence recommendations to their \ practice setting (Kuiper & Pesut, 2004; Victor-Chmil, 2013).

Before we describe the translation process, it is important to clarify s\ ome terminology used in translation. Study or project teams often use the te\ rms translation and implementation interchangeably, which is appropriate; however, we describe the significant difference between translation and impleme\ ntation science (see Box 8.1). Translation Models The use of a translation model or framework in this phase of the PET pro\ cess is imperative in ensuring a systematic and intentional approach to the c\ hange.

First and foremost, the team selects a model or framework to ensure a fu\ lly realized translation. There are multiple frameworks or models to choose \ from; Tabak et al. (2012) reviewed sixty-one current translation models. Many\ focus on implementing evidence into practice, enhanced by a body of literature\ that describes implementation strategies (Waltz et al., 2015). Secondly, translation requires organizational support, human and material resources, and a com\ - mitment of individuals and interprofessional teams. Context, communicati\ on, Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 191 leadership, mentoring, and evidence affect the implementation and dissem\ ination of best evidence into practice. Finally, planning and active coordination by the team are critical to successful translation, as is adherence to prin\ ciples of change that guide this process and careful attention to the characterist\ ics of the organization involved (Newhouse et al., 2007; White et al., 2020). Box 8.1 Implementation Science Implementation science is “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practi\ ces into routine practice, and, hence, to improve the quality and effectiveness o\ f health services and care” (Eccles & Mittman, 2006, p. 1). Implementation s\ cience tries to understand how, when, where, and why change processes work. By rigorously studying methods of systems improvements, they attempt to ans\ wer the question: What are the best methods to facilitate the uptake of evid\ ence into practice?

Over the last 20 years, there has been concern that local success in tra\ nslating evidence into practice is often challenging to replicate, spread, and su\ stain.

Factors that facilitate the change in practice may work in one setting b\ ut not in another. These local successes, performed in a single setting of convenience, are not generalizable because the translation does not consider other cr\ itical organizational contributing or confounding factors. In addition, simplis\ tic impact measures are often used, and spread and sustainability are rarely\ part of the translation strategy. Implementation science focuses on researching the efficacy and effectiveness of different translation strategies and the\ rigorous testing of improvement strategies. Well-designed and effective implementation strategies affect the sustainability of those efforts (White et al., 20\ 20). We describe The Model for Improvement: PDSA (Langley et al., 2009) to t\ rans - late evidence into practice because it is one of the most used and succe\ ssful trans - lation approaches in healthcare. In addition to the PDSA cycle, other mo\ dels (see Table 8.1) may be more appropriate given the complexity and scale of cha\ nge being implemented.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 192 Table 8.1 Models and Frameworks for Translation and Implementation of Evidence Model or Framework Description Best Used For AHRQ:

Knowledge Transfer Accelerates the transfer of research findings to organizations that can benefit from it. Includes three phases:

1) knowledge creation and distillation, 2) diffusion and dissemination, and 3) end user adoption (Nieva et al., 2005). Developing tools and strategies to implement research findings, specifically for AHRQ grantees and healthcare providers engaged in direct patient care to improve care quality (Nieva et al., 2005). Knowledge-to- Action Integrates creation and application of knowledge. Knowledge creation includes knowledge inquiry, synthesis, and tools/products; knowledge becomes more refined as it moves through these three steps.

Action includes identifying and appraising the problem and the known research; identifying barriers and successes; planning and executing; and finally monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting (Graham, 2006). Facilitating the use of research knowledge by several stakeholders, such as practitioners, policymakers, patients, and the public (Graham et al., 2006). PARIHS Examines the interactions between evidence, context, and facilitation to translate evidence into practice by placing equal importance on the setting and how the evidence is introduced into the setting as well as the quality of the evidence itself (Bergström et al., 2020). Organizing framework to specify determinants that act as barriers and enablers influencing implementation outcomes (Bergström et al., 2020).

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 193 QUERI Implementation Roadmap to Implement Evidence- Based Practices Drives the adoption of high-value research innovations by empowering frontline providers, researchers, administrators, and health system leaders by focusing on the development of practical products (e.g., implementation playbook) and a data-driven evaluation plan (Stetler et al., 2008). Based on quality improvement science, is distinctively suited for use in real-world settings to support further scale-up and spread of an effective practice (Stetler et al., 2008). RE-AIM Designed to enhance the quality, speed, and public health impact of efforts to translate research into practice in five steps:

■ Reach your intended target population ■ Efficacy (or effectiveness) ■ Adoption by target staff, settings, systems, or communities ■ Implementation consistency, costs, and adaptations made during delivery ■ Maintenance of intervention effects in individuals and settings over time (Glasgow et al., 1999) Determine public health impact, translate research into practice, help plan programs and improve their chances of working in “real-world” settings, and understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to health promotion and chronic disease self- management—such as in-person counseling, group education classes, telephone counseling, and internet resources (Glasgow et al., 1999). Notes: QUERI – Quality Enhancement Research Initiative; PARIHS – Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Service\ s The Model for Improvement: PDSA The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a four-stage quality improvement (QI) model. PDSA approaches are simple, rapid cycle quality improvement proce\ sses that provide a structured, data-driven learning approach that allows tea\ ms to assess whether a change leads to improvement in a particular setting and\ to make appropriate, timely adjustments. PDSA uses a “test of change”\ approach to quickly troubleshoot issues as well as increase the scale and complex\ ity of the translation to achieve the desired improvement. To properly implement and evaluate the cycles, the EBP team must form a translation team. This tra\ nslation Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 194 team may be different from the original team that evaluated the evidence\ due to the need to include team members who can identify and address any proble\ ms in the specific local context where the evidence is implemented.

The translation team sets measurable goals and integrates measurement in\ to dai - ly workflows. Goal setting includes drafting aims using the SMART goal format (Table 8.2) and establishing measures to assess change. Table 8.2 Definition of a SMART Goal Specific Goals should be straightforward and state what you want to happen. Be specific and define what you are going to do. Use action words such \ as direct, organize, coordinate, lead, develop, plan, etc. Measurable If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. Choose goals with me\ asurable progress, and establish concrete criteria for measuring the success of y\ our goal. Achievable Goals must be within your capacity to reach. If goals are set too far ou\ t of your reach, you cannot commit to accomplishing them. A goal should stretch you slightly so you feel you can do it, and it will need a real \ commitment from you. Success in reaching attainable goals keeps you motivated. Relevant Goals should be relevant. Make sure each goal is consistent with your other goals and aligned with the goals of the company, your manager, or your department. Time-bound Set a time frame for the goal: for next week, in three months, end of th\ e quarter. Putting an end point on your goal gives you a clear target to work toward. Without a time limit, there’s no urgency to start taking action now. Source: Johns Hopkins Performance Evaluation Resource For successful data collection of the identified measures, a simple da\ ta collec - tion form may be beneficial, as well as assigning data collection into\ daily tasks (preferably of one or two point people). The PDSA process requires the\ team to answer three fundamental questions, in any order (Figure 8.1): What ar\ e we try - ing to accomplish? How will we know that a change is an improvement? Wha\ t change can we make that will result in an improvement?

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 195 To answer these questions, the team engages in four stages that compose t\ he PDSA model (Table 8.3). Table 8.3 Plan-Do-Study-Act Model Stages and Definitions Stages Activity Definition I Plan Develop a plan to test the change that answers the questions: What data will the team collect? Who? What? When? Where? II Do Carry out the plan and document unexpected problems and observations. III Study Analyze and study the results, summarize, and reflect on learning(s). IV Act Define the change based on what was learned from the test, and determine what modifications should be made. ActPlan Study Do What are we trying to accomplish? Model for Improvement How will we know that a change is an improvement?

What change can we make that will result in improvement? Figure 8.1 Model for Improvement.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 196 Components of the Translation Phase Component 1: Identify Practice Setting–Specific Recommendations The translation phase begins when the interprofessional practice team se\ lects a course of action to implement a change or pilot (Appendix I) and agr\ ees on the organization-specific recommendations. Critical to the translation\ are the relationships of this interprofessional team that capitalize on the know\ ledge and skills that each member brings, including an understanding of the specifi\ c practice setting. The team takes responsibility for translation of the best evide\ nce to the local context. Translation requires that the team assess the fit, feasibility, and acceptability of the recommendations within the organization’s context (White et al., 2020). Component 2: Determine Fit, Feasibility, and Acceptability of Recommenda\ tions to the Organization Practice recommendations made in the evidence phase, even if based on co\ mpelling evidence, might not be suitable to implement in all settings. The EBP te\ am is responsible for evaluating best evidence recommendations for implementat\ ion within the practice setting (see Appendix I). Stetler (2001, 2010) r\ ecommends using specific criteria such as fit, feasibility, and desirability.

Assessment of the fit to the current practice environment involves consideration of the extent to which the change is suited to the end user’s workflow and if the change sufficiently improves a specific practice problem. The EBP te\ am accomplishes this by evaluating the current environment, the extent to which the chan\ ge aligns with organizational priorities, and the infrastructure in place, such as\ resources (equipment or products) and the presence of people who can foster chan\ ge or facilitate the adoption of the evidence (Greenhalgh et al., 2004).

Determining the feasibility of implementing best evidence recommendations within an organizational setting involves assessing the extent to which the tea\ m evaluates and believes the change is doable, that barriers are realistic to overco\ me, and that risk is minimal. The team should assess the practice environment’s readiness for change, which includes the availability of human and material resources,\ support from decision-makers (individuals and groups), and budget implications\ ; and they evaluate and determine whether it is possible to develop strategies to o\ vercome Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 197 barriers to implementation. Strategies include seeking input and involve\ ment from the frontline staff, stakeholders, and other individuals affected by the\ change and cocreating communication, education, and implementation plans with those\ most affected by the change. The final area to assess for feasibility befor\ e implementing proposed recommendations is to evaluate the risk of making the change in\ the specific practice environment. This risk assessment focuses on ide\ ntifying, analyzing, and discussing safety vulnerabilities that the change may cre\ ate for the organization. A Heat Chart is a useful quality improvement tool that\ shows a visual or graphical picture of complex dimensions of problems, or in t\ his case, the risk consideration during the action planning steps for translation.\ Figure 8.2 provides a color-coded stop light representation of the interrelated role of risk and strength and consistency of evidence when the team is determining whethe\ r best evidence should be put into practice. (NOTE: The ebook versions of this\ book present the heat chart in color with reds, yellows, and greens, while th\ e print book presents the same information using black, gray, and white indicating “stop,” “use caution,” and “proceed,” respectively.) Interventions with higher risks require more strong, consistent, and compelling evidence than those with lower risks.\ It is also important to note, that although an intervention with little or confli\ cting evidence may be low risk, it should still be translated judiciously to ensure the\ team is not wasting time and resources on a change not supported by the literature. Figure 8.2 Heat chart for interconnected role of safety risk and strength and consistency of best evidence.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 198 The final area to consider is that of acceptability. Acceptability refers to the extent to which stakeholders and organizational leadership perceive the EBP cha\ nge to be agreeable and palatable, and trust that the change is reasonable. Lea\ dership is a critical element in the effective implementation of innovations and chan\ ge within an organization (Aarons et al., 2015). EBP teams should seek opportunitie\ s to inform key stakeholders and leaders within the organization about their progres\ s to obtain their input and feedback throughout the PET process. Key collaborators i\ nclude leaders in areas such as organizational risk management, quality improve\ ment, and patient safety. Keeping these leaders and leaders of the target change area(s) informed positions the team for organizational support during implementa\ tion of recommended changes and increases the likelihood of change adoption a\ nd sustainability.

In summary, change initiatives such as translation are prone to failure and waste \ valuable time and resources on efforts that produce negligible benefit\ s when the assessment of safety risk; quality of the best evidence; availability of\ resources, including money, time, and staff; and other factors that could negatively impact the translation are not considered during this action planning phase. Component 3: Create an Action Plan for Translation Creating an action plan, informed by a translation model or framework, p\ rovides manageable steps to implement change and assigns responsibility for carr\ ying the project forward. The translation team develops specific strategies to \ introduce, promote, support, and evaluate the practice change. It can be helpful to\ formulate the plan in a template that includes a timeline with progress columns (see \ Appendix I).

The action plan includes: ■ Development of the strategy for translation of the change (e.g., protoc\ ol, guideline, system, or process) ■ Specification of a detailed timeline, assignment of team members to hi\ gh- level task categories and subtasks, an evaluation process, and a plan fo\ r how results will be reported ■ Solicitation of feedback on the action plan from organizational leadersh\ ip, bedside clinicians, and other stakeholders Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 199 The action plan begins with validation of the determination of fit, fe\ asibility, and acceptability for translation to the specific practice setting and the\ readiness of the unit, department, or organization for change. Organizational infrast\ ructure is the cornerstone of successful translation. Infrastructure provides hu\ man and material resources that are fundamental in preparation for change (Gree\ nhalgh et al., 2004; Newhouse & White, 2011). Readiness for translation includes \ assessing the current state and strategically planning for building the capacity o\ f the organization before implementation begins. Additionally, fully realized translation requires organizational resources and commitment. Paying particular atte\ ntion to the planning and implementation of organization-specific recommendatio\ ns can improve the potential for successfully meeting the project’s goals. Beyond human and material readiness, teams need to consider organizational/department\ /unit culture.

Organizational culture refers to group-learned attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions as the unit, department, or organization integrates and adapts to intern\ al and external forces. These attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions become attrib\ utes of the group and subsequently become the preferred way to “perceive, think, \ and feel in relation to problems” (Schein, 2004, p. 17). To change the culture, the team must challenge tradition, reinforce the need for evidence to inform deci\ sions, and change old patterns of behavior, which sometimes requires new skills. Additional detail and tools to assess organizational readiness and culture are avai\ lable elsewhere (Poe & White, 2010).

Johns Hopkins Nursing uses one strategy extensively to effectively manag\ e and work through the human side of organizational change. Bridges and Bridge\ s (2017) model, Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change , suggests the Four Ps—Purpose, Picture, Plan, Part (see Table 8.4)—to give those affected by the change time and opportunity to internalize the change and a forum to\ express their questions or concerns. Those who are outspoken about the change ar\ e often those who genuinely care about getting things right and can recognize th\ e pitfalls and make great suggestions to improve the planning activities.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 200 Table 8.4 Four Ps Tool to Communicate Change Purpose Why are we making this change? Share with others who are not involved in the planning why things are changing and what will happen if things stay the same. Picture What will it look like? Share what the desired outcome will look like; invite staff to co- create the picture with you. Paint a picture of how the outcome will look and feel. Plan What is the plan and path to the end point? Lay out, step by step, the plan and path to the new state; invite staff to critique, contribute to, and change the path; make an idea list and a worry list. Part What part will they have in creating the plan and end point? People own what they create, so let staff know what you need from them, what part they will have, and where they will have choices or input. Component 4: Secure Support and Resources to Implement Action Plan To ensure a successful translation (see Appendix A), first appoint a \ project leader and identify change champions who are supportive of the recommend\ ed practice change and who will be able to support the project leader durin\ g the translation phase of the project. Change champions are individuals within an organization who volunteer or are selected to facilitate the change. The\ change champion is an active member of the staff who will be involved during th\ e full implementation of the practice change. Once champions are on board, cons\ ider whether the translation activities will require any additional skills, k\ nowledge, or individuals who can assist with or will be essential to the success o\ f the work.

These additional members, often referred to as opinion leaders , are usually well- known individuals to the practice group in the organization whose opinio\ n is held in high esteem and could influence the practice group’s perspective for or against the change. The opinion leader is often someone that the group m\ embers Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 201 turn to for advice or views on matters of importance, so it is critical \ to identify them in the process.

Once this group is organized, its members identify barriers and facilita\ tors to the success of the proposed practice change, surfacing strengths to tap into\ and use those to overcome the barriers. They consider how the change affects cur\ rent policies and procedures, the workflow and throughput of the unit or de\ partment, and technological supports to the group’s usual work, such as the electronic health record (EHR) or another technology that the group depends on.

Securing support from stakeholders and decision-makers is critical to th\ e imple - mentation phase. Availability of funds to cover expenses associated with the translation and the allocation of human, material, and technological res\ ources is dependent on the endorsement of stakeholders, such as organizational lea\ ders or committees and in collaboration with those individuals or groups affecte\ d by the recommendations. It may be necessary to bring in content or external exp\ erts to consult on the translation. One key milestone in formulating the action \ plan is an estimation of expenses and resources needed for translation and potentia\ l fund - ing sources. Decision-makers may support wide implementation of the chan\ ge, request a small test of the change to validate effectiveness, request re\ visions of the plan or recommendations, or reject the implementation plan. Preparin\ g for the presentation or meeting with decision-makers, involving stakeholders\ (see Appendix C), and creating a comprehensive action plan are the key steps\ in building organizational support. The action plan should include identifying critical high-level categorie\ s of activi - ties and associated tasks designed to meet the goals of the project to c\ omplete the translation. The plan should include SMART goals, a schedule of all neces - sary activities, and an assignment of who is responsible for each activi\ ty and the target time frame for completion. The action plan should also include ac\ tivities associated with collection and analysis of the pre- and post-measures (\ see Appen - dix B) for evaluation of the practice change.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 202 Component 5: Implement the Action Plan After the EBP team creates the action plan and secures support, implemen\ tation begins. The first step is a small test of the change, or pilot . The team seeks input from stakeholders and staff affected by the change and communicate\ s the effective date of implementation and the pilot evaluation plan. This\ communication can take the form of an agenda item at a staff meeting, an\ in- service, a direct mailing, an email, a bulletin board, or a video, for e\ xample.

Stakeholders and staff must know who the project leader is, where to acc\ ess needed information or supplies, and how to communicate to the project le\ ader issues as they arise. The team obtains staff input along the way to iden\ tify problems and address them as soon as possible. Component 6: Evaluate Outcomes After implementing the change, the EBP team uses the measures identifi\ ed in the PICO to evaluate the success of the change. Collaborating with the Q\ I experts can be important during the evaluation process for guidance on t\ ools and appropriate intervals to measure the change. Selecting and developin\ g measures includes defining the purpose of measurement, choosing the cl\ inical areas to evaluate, selecting and developing the metrics, and evaluating \ the results (Pronovost et al., 2001 [adapted from McGlynn, 1998]). The EBP\ team compares baseline data to post-implementation data to determine whether \ the change should be implemented on a wider scale. Measures may encompass fi\ ve types of outcomes (Poe & White, 2010, p. 157); see Table 8.5. Table 8.5 Five Types of Outcome Measures Outcomes Definition Clinical Patient- or disease-focused and therefore reflects certain aspects of \ an illness; they can be physiological (e.g., a lab value), or they can\ be adverse event-focused (e.g., falls). Functional Measures patient responses or their adaptation to health problems; examples include factors such as ability to perform activities of daily \ living, self-care, or quality of life.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 203 Perceptual Applies to both the patient and the provider and their self-report of experiences with care or their work environment, for example, their satisfaction; perceptual experiences also include comprehension related \ to education and the demonstration or application of that knowledge. Process or Intervention Measures of the appropriateness of treatment or care, including process \ measures such as The Joint Commission core measure of blood culture collection prior to antibiotic administration for treatment of pneumonia\ ; other evidence-based process measures include falls prevention, turning \ to prevent pressure ulcers, and medication reconciliation to prevent medication errors. Organization, Departmental, Unit-Based Focuses on administrative factors that provide evidence of effectiveness\ , or management issues such as staff fatigue related to working greater than three consecutive 12-hour shifts. Final Steps of the Translation Phase The Translation Phase needs to include communication to all participants and \ stakeholders in the translation process. The communication plan should b\ e targeted to the specific audience and can use multiple venues. For exa\ mple, the transition team provides regular communication about the progress at the\ ir unit or department meetings. Additionally, other forms of messaging, such as bulletin boards, posters, or data dashboards, can provide updates. Chang\ e champions and opinion leaders are critical assets to getting the updates\ out to all involved. Finally, targeting the report of the translation results to all stakeholders will require careful planning and discussion by the team. A\ one- size-fits-all communication strategy will not be successful. The trans\ ition team should customize the messages to the specific stakeholders and audienc\ es.

Communication and dissemination are discussed in Chapter 9. Summary Translation is the value proposition of evidence-based practice. While th\ e PET Phases are linear, the steps in the process may be iterative and generate new questions, recommendations, or actions. The organizational infrastructur\ e needed to support robust translation of best evidence into practice includes bu\ dgetary Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation 204 support; human and material resources; and the commitment of individuals\ , stakeholders, and interprofessional teams. Translation of recommendations requires organizational skills, project management, and leaders with a h\ igh level of influence and tenacity. References Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., & Hurlburt, M. S. (2015\ ). Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): A randomized mixed me\ thod pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-b\ ased practice implementation. Implementation Science , 10 (11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014- 0192-y Bergström, A., Ehrenberg, A., Eldh, A. C., Graham, I. D., Gustafsson,\ K., Harvey, G., Hunter, S., Kitson, A., Rycroft-Malone, J., & Wallin, L. (2020). The use of the PARIHS framework in implementation research and practice—A citation analysis of the liter\ ature. Implementation Science , 15(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01003-0 Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. M. (2017). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (4th ed.). Da Capo Lifelong Books. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implementation Sci1, 1 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge trans\ lation of research findings. Implementation Science , 7(50). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of he\ alth promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health , 89(9), 1322–1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322 Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions , 26(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.47 Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendati\ ons. The Milbank Quarterly. 82. 581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive \ reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: self-regulated learning theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45 (4): 381–391. Langley, G. L., Moen, R., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational perf\ ormance (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers. McGlynn, E. A. (1998). Choosing and evaluating clinical performance me\ asures. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement , 24(9), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s1070-3241(16)30396-0 Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professi\ onals, Fourth Edition 205 Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White, K. M. (2007). Organiza\ tional change strategies for evidence-based practice. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration , 37 (12), 552–557. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNA.0000302384.91366.8f Newhouse, R. P., & White, K. M. (2011). Guiding implementation: Frameworks and resou\ rces for evidence translation. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration , 41 (12), 513–516. https:// doi.org/0.1097/NNA.0b013e3182378bb0 Nieva, V. F., Murphy, R., Ridley, N., Donaldson, N., Combes, J., Mitchell, P., Kovner, C., Hoy, E., & Carpenter, D. (2005). From science to service: A framework for the transfer of \ patient safety research into practice. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation (Volume 2: Concepts and Methodology). Poe, S., & White, K. (Eds.). (2010). Johns Hopkins Nursing: Implementation and translation. Sigma Theta Tau. Pronovost, P. J., Miller, M. R., Dorman, T., Berenholtz, S. M., & Rubin, H. (2001). Developing and implementing measures of quality of care in the intensive care unit. Current Opinion in Critical Care , 7(4), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/00075198-200108000-00014 Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Stetler, C. B. (2001). Updating the Stetler Model of research utilization to \ facilitate evidence-based practice. Nursing Outlook , 49(6), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1067/mno.2001.120517 Stetler, C. B. (2010). Stetler Model. In J. Rycroft-Malone & T. Bucknall (Eds.), Models and frameworks for implementing evidence-based practice: Linking evidence to\ action. Wiley- Blackwell. Stetler, C. B., Mittman, B. S., & Francis, J. (2008). Overview of the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implementation Science , 3(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-8 Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012).\ Bridging research and practice: Models for dissemination and implementation research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 43(3), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024 Victor-Chmil, J. (2013). Critical thinking versus clinical reasoning versus \ clinical judgment: Differential diagnosis. Nurse Educator , 38(1), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/ NNE.0b013e318276dfbe Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Matthieu, M. M., Damschroder, L. J., Chinman, M. J., Smith, J. L., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015). Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importa\ nce: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science , 10, 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. (2020). Translation of evidence into nursing and health care practice (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing.

Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.

8 Translation Dang, Deborah, et al. Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses and Healthcare Professionals, Fourth Edition, Sigma Theta Tau International, 2021.

ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucf/detail.action?docID=6677828.

Created from ucf on 2022-10-17 02:42:22.