Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making

Impact of a Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) on Nursing Policy and Practice

BACKGROUND

In 2006, our healthcare system created a hospital Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to support the local delivery of high-quality, safe and high value patient care. Since then, the importance of healthcare staff work life has also been highlighted, and together these four elements form the Quadruple Aim framework. Synergistic to this Aim, the Magnet^® program promotes and recognizes organizational nursing excellence.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the EPC's work to inform nursing policy and practice in support of the goals of the Quadruple Aim framework and Magnet^® designation.

METHODS

Methods used included the following: (1) descriptive analysis of the hospital EPC's database of rapid reviews; and (2) administration of a 40-item electronic questionnaire to nurses who requested an EPC review during fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2016.

RESULTS

Of 308 rapid reviews completed in the EPC's first 10 years, 59 (19%) addressed nursing topics. The proportion of reviews relevant to nursing increased from 5% (2/39) in the center's first 2 years to 44% (25/60) in FY 2015-2016. The majority of nursing reviews (39/59) examined processes of care. Of 23 nurses eligible to participate in the survey, 21 responded (91%). Nurses with administrative or managerial responsibilities requested 70% of reviews; clinical nurse specialists and bedside nurses requested 17% and 9%, respectively. Reviews were used to support clinical program development (48%), provide clinical guidance (33%), update nursing policies or procedures (24%) and develop training and curricula (24%). Nurses were satisfied with the hospital EPC reviews (mean; 4.7/5), and 95% indicated they were likely to request a future review.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A dedicated hospital EPC in partnership with nursing offers a unique mechanism for promoting a culture of evidence-based practice. Nurses at all organizational levels use the services of a hospital EPC to inform nursing policy and practice and are highly satisfied with the process, supporting the Quadruple Aim and Magnet^® designation.

Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews

BACKGROUND

There is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with key informants representing: guideline developers (n = 3), health care providers/health system organizations (n = 3), research funders (n = 1), and payers/health insurers (n = 1). We elicited perspectives on important characteristics of systematic reviews, acceptable methods to streamline reviews, and uses of rapid products. We analyzed content of the interview transcripts and identified themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Key informants identified the following as critical features of evidence reviews: (1) originating from a reliable source (i.e., conducted by experienced reviewers from an established research organization), (2) addressing clinically relevant questions, and (3) trusted relationship between the user and producer. Key informants expressed strong preference for the following review methods and characteristics: use of evidence tables, quality rating of studies, assessments of total evidence quality/strength, and use of summary tables for results and conclusions. Most acceptable trade-offs to increase efficiencies were limiting the literature search (e.g., limiting search dates or language) and performing single screening of citations and full texts for relevance. Key informants perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or guideline, direction for future research). Most key informants indicated that evidence analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence assessments were important for decision-making. They reported that rapid reviews in particular were useful for guideline development on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision-making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and decisions about coverage by payers/health insurers. Rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems; whereas, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

Key informants interviewed in our study indicated that evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews have utility in specific decisions and contexts. They indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product. Our findings are limited by the sample size which may have been too small to reach saturation for the themes described.

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

Rapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.

METHODS

Review of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).

RESULTS

Across all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.

CONCLUSION

RR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making

BACKGROUND

To provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operational partners' more urgent decision-making needs. VHA operational partners play a substantial role in dissemination of ESP rapid reviews through a variety of routes, including posting on the VA ESP's public website ( http://www.hsrd.

RESEARCH

va.gov/publications/esp/ ). As demand for rapid reviews rises, much progress has been made in characterizing methods and practices. However, evidence synthesis organizations still seek to better understand how and when rapid reviews are being used.

METHODS

The VA ESP administered an online survey to rapid review operational partners. The survey assessed the nature of decision-making needs, overall perception of review content, resulting actions, and implementation timeframe. We use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize findings.

RESULTS

Between October 2011 and April 2015, we completed 12 rapid reviews for 35 operational partners. Operational partners were primarily non-academic subject matter experts with VA operations' decision-making authority. The most common topic categories reviewed were policy or system (50 %) or process of care (42 %) initiatives. Median report completion time was 14.5 weeks. Survey response rate was 46 %, with at least one operational partner responding for 92 % of reports. Reviews served multiple purposes including policy directive or regulation (72 %), supporting program development and evaluation (55 %), identifying future research needs (45 %), and determining implementation strategy (45 %). Overall, operational partners' perception of report content was positive. A majority of rapid reviews were used immediately and informed actions ranking high on the Institute of Medicine's Degrees of Impact framework: 45.4 % effected change, 18.2 % inspired action, 18.2 % informed the field, 9.1 % received recognition, and 9.1 % spread a message.

CONCLUSIONS

VA ESP rapid reviews have increased the VHA's uptake of evidence to inform time-sensitive system-level decision-making. Key areas of interest for future evaluation include assessing user perception of our streamlined methods and the quality of our efforts to inform users of these methods, as well as comparing the usability and impact of our rapid and standard systematic reviews.