Abstract
The main objective of this paper was to investigate whether point-of-care clinicians benefit from training on research aspects and the impact of the same on evidence-based practice (EBP). In the contemporary nursing practice, EBP is being fronted as one of the approaches that improve patient care and outcomes. The authors used a mixed method design to evaluate the role of training intervention with point-of-care clinicians. Interviews and focus groups were used for data collection. In total, 27 teams and 153 clinicians (with 78 registered nurses), were recruited for the study (Black, Balneaves, Garossino, Puyat, & Qian, 2015).
The participants completed the Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice (KAP) survey at three different time points. The results showed that training improved the participants’ research knowledge and the capacity to use EBP in their practice. The authors concluded that one of the strategies that can be used to promote EBP and empower point-of-care clinicians for research is to offer training opportunities.
Article’s (Im)balance
The article is not balanced. The issue being investigated in this case was the role of research training in promoting evidence-based care among point-of-care clinicians. Therefore, the authors should have included a control group consisting of participants not involved in any training program. On the contrary, all the participants had enrolled in a training program. As such, the writers were biased by focusing on individuals clustered in a training program, which underscores the imbalance of the study’s findings.
Analysis
The writers did sufficient research on the topic under discussion. The literature review section of the article is comprehensive and the arguments made are supported with current peer-reviewed reference materials. The writers used 37 scholarly articles to conduct in-depth research on the issue of training clinicians as a way of promoting evidence-based practice. Besides, the article is technically correct, clearly presented, and supported using relevant resources. The arguments made throughout the article have strong backing from other peer-reviewed research articles on the topic. Additionally, the article is divided into different subtopics and structured as scholarly reference material.
For instance, the article starts with a brief abstract highlighting the objectives, background information, methods, result, and conclusions of the study. Consequently, it becomes easy for the reader to follow the flow of ideas and arguments throughout the article. However, some elements could have been enhanced with more details. For example, the authors would have offered more information on the clustering effect among the participants. This issue is mentioned briefly in the discussion part. However, the information given does not indicate the impact of such clustering on the study’s findings.
A follow-up article should address some of the limitations of the current study. For instance, the majority of the participants were females involved in acute care. Besides, all the participants had already registered in a training program. Therefore, the findings may not be generalized to other clinical settings and populations. As such, a follow-up article should be a randomized clinical trial to avoid bias. Additionally, the study should be carried out in different clinical set-ups and facilities to ensure that the findings can be extrapolated and generalized in other populations. Finally, I agree with the article’s findings.
Training is one of the ways that clinicians can use to gather relevant information and gain skills needed for improved care. Evidence-based care is an emerging approach for better patient outcomes, and I believe that through training, clinicians can become competent in their duties. Therefore, the article supported my opinion.
Reference
Black, A. T., Balneaves, L. G., Garossino, C., Puyat, J. H., & Qian, H. (2015). Promoting evidence-based practice through a research training program for point-of-care clinicians. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 45(1), 14-20.