The article by Pals et al. (2015) throws light on patients’ and physicians’ perceptions regarding the use of the Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) test. This technology is aimed at measuring heart rate variability. In this study, patients who have diabetes have been interviewed, as well as care providers monitoring their health condition, to check the usefulness of this tool. The purpose of this paper is to review the study findings and discuss the methods to disseminate the research-based evidence.
Findings
It has been noted that almost half of all the participants did not remember whether the technology was applied to them. The results have revealed that four out of 19 patients have been able to remember that the CAN test was used during their meetings with physicians. It means that the patients have been unfamiliar with this technology, and they have been unaware of the fact that it was applied to them at some stage of the meeting (Pals et al., 2015). The interview with the practitioners has shown that specialists perceive the usefulness of the CAN test differently. When a physician believed that the technology was of low relevance, he or she ignored its use, or they would not discuss its results with the patient. In addition, some of the practitioners had difficulty communicating the results to their patients (Pals et al., 2015). Some of them did not know how to discuss complex test results with individuals who were unfamiliar with special terminology. These factors have resulted in the setting in which behavioral change was directly affected by the levels of knowledge in both patients and physicians.
I would apply the evidence found to my practice because it stressed the significance of constructive communication between physicians and their patients. In addition, the research has proved that cardiovascular risk stratification is an important element of care. Patients should be made aware of the instruments applied to them when making measurements, which will help them to comprehend the significance of changing their health-related behavior (Pals et al., 2015). Nonetheless, it cannot be achieved if the information provided to them is complex or if specialists communicate the findings using difficult terminology. Therefore, the evidence suggests that the CAN test is a useful tool for detecting cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy; however, specialists should consider ways to deliver this information to patients correctly.
Sharing Research-Based Evidence
To share the research-based evidence with peers, three different strategies can be employed. The first way is to disseminate the findings through emails. Since all specialists have access to shared computers at workstations, it is possible to inform them about the importance of CAN testing through regular work emails to which the article could be attached together with a short discussion of the evidence (Houser, 2016). The second method is participation in a shared governance council meeting. During the event, specialists will be able to discuss the ways in which the results can be presented to patients in the most understandable manner. The third method is to provide information regarding CAN testing and its usefulness using an employee information board (Grove, Burns, & Gray, 2014). This way, all specialists will have an opportunity to observe the research results and will review the study at a time that is convenient for them.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that nursing practice can be improved if relevant evidence is applied to it. The analysis of research results helps to understand whether a particular technology should be considered useful. In the case of the CAN test, the tool turned out to be helpful; nonetheless, specialists are often unsure of the way its results should be discussed with patients, which leads to the decreased effect of the tool application.
References
Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Understanding nursing research: Building an evidence-based practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Houser, J. (2016). Nursing research: Reading, using and creating evidence (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Pals, R. A. S., Hansen, U. M., Johansen, C. B., Hansen, C. S., Jørgensen, M. E., Fleischer, J., & Willaing, I. (2015). Making sense of new technology in clinical practice: A qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-10.