Aims and objectives: To describe the process of implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) in a clinical nursing setting. Background: EBP has become a major issue in nursing, it is insufficiently integrated in daily practice and its implementation is complex. Design: Participatory action research. Method: The main participants were nurses working in a lung unit of a rural hospital. A multi-method process of data collection was used during the observing, reflecting, planning and acting phases. Data were continuously gathered during a 24-month period from 2010 to 2012, and analysed using an interpretive constant comparative approach. Patients were consulted to incorporate their perspective. Results: A best-practice mode of working was prevalent on the ward. The main barriers to the implementation of EBP were that nurses had little knowledge of EBP and a rather negative attitude towards it, and that their English reading proficiency was poor. The main facilitators were that nurses wanted to deliver high-quality care and were enthusiastic and open to innovation. Implementation strategies included a tailored interactive outreach training and the development and implementation of an evidence-based discharge protocol. The academic model of EBP was adapted. Nurses worked according to the EBP discharge protocol but barely recorded their activities. Nurses favourably evaluated the participatory action research process. Conclusions: Action research provides an opportunity to empower nurses and to tailor EBP to the practice context. Applying and implementing EBP is difficult for front-line nurses with limited EBP competencies. Relevance to clinical practice: Adaptation of the academic model of EBP to a more pragmatic approach seems necessary to introduce EBP into clinical practice. The use of scientific evidence can be facilitated by using pre-appraised evidence. For clinical practice, it seems relevant to integrate scientific evidence with clinical expertise and patient values in nurses’ clinical decision making at the individual patient level.
Nurse clinician-scientists are increasingly expected to show leadership aimed at transforming healthcare. However, research on nurse clinician-scientists' leadership (integrating researcher and practitioner roles) is scarce and hardly embedded in sociohistorical contexts. This study introduces leadership moments, that is, concrete events in practices that are perceived as acts of empowerment, in order to understand leadership in the daily work of newly appointed nurse clinician-scientists. Following the learning history method we gathered data using multiple (qualitative) methods to get close to their daily practices. A document analysis provided us with insight into the history of nursing science to illustrate how leadership moments in the everyday work of nurse clinician-scientists in the “here and now” can be related to the particular histories from which they emerged. A qualitative analysis led to three acts of empowerment: (1) becoming visible, (2) building networks, and (3) getting wired in. These acts are illustrated with three series of events in which nurse clinician-scientists' leadership becomes visible. This study contributes to a more socially embedded understanding of nursing leadership, enables us to get a grip on crucial leadership moments, and provides academic and practical starting points for strengthening nurse clinician-scientists' leadership practices. Transformations in healthcare call for transformed notions of leadership.
MULTIFILE
Talk by members of executive hospital boards influences the organizational positioning of nurses. Talk is a relational leadership practice. Using a qualitative‐ interpretive design we organized focus group meetings wherein members of executive hospital boards (7), nurses (14), physicians (7), and managers (6), from 15 Dutch hospitals, discussed the organizational positioning of nursing during COVID crisis. We found that members of executive hospital boards consider the positioning of nursing in crisis a task of nurses themselves and not as a collective, interdependent, and/or specific board responsibility. Furthermore, members of executive hospital boards talk about the nursing profession as (1) more practical than strategic, (2) ambiguous in positioning, and (3) distinctive from the medical profession. Such talk seemingly contrasts with the notion of interdependence that highlights how actors depend on each other in interaction. Interdependence is central to collaboration in hospital crises. In this paper, therefore, we depart from the members of executive hospital boards as leader and “positioner,” and focus on talk— as a discursive leadership practice—to illuminate leadership and governance in hospitals in crisis, as social, interdependent processes.
MULTIFILE
