Preprint
Article
Implementing Best Practice Guidelines under the Best Practice Spotlight Organisation®: Facilitators and Barriers for Nurses. A Delphi Study
Altmetrics
Downloads
124
Views
31
Comments
0
A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
24 July 2024
Posted:
25 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Alerts
Abstract
The implementation and sustainability of evidence-based practice (EBP) is a complex process. Best practice guidelines (BPGs) can facilitate the translation of knowledge from theory into practice, but they require working groups to adapt recommendations and encourage adherence to them. The aim of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers of BPGs in the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario®, within the framework of Best Practice Spotlight Organisations® (BPSOs®), in a hospital setting. The study was conducted using the modified Delphi method (two rounds) with a cohort of BPSO® Best Practice Champions. The facilitators and barriers included in the first round were identified through a bibliographic search. The degree of concordance was determined in the second round using the highest mean resulting values. A total of 44 nurses responded, with a mean age of 42.57±8.563. Facilitators included: Work Environment; Working in a hospital that encourages research; and Dedicating time to EBP (p<0.001). Barriers: Excessive workload; Professional mobility (p<0.001); and Lack of time (p=0.002). As such, it is necessary to approach human resource management by implementing new policies that guarantee systemic sustainability. The BPSO® programme is an excellent framework for promoting the translation of theoretical knowledge into practice and effecting institutional change.
Keywords:
Subject: Public Health and Healthcare - Nursing
1. Introduction
Work environments that are poorly equipped to promote proper development of nursing care may impact on patient health outcomes [1,2].
Evidence-based practice (EBP), the result of translating theoretical knowledge into clinical practice, can aid nursing staff in achieving healthcare excellence. It facilitates the decision-making process, if and when nurses are properly informed of and involved in this process [3].
The implementation and sustainability of EBP in healthcare settings is a complex process that requires a solid foundation. The international implementation programme for best practice guidelines (BPGs), the Best Practice Spotlight Organisation® (BPSO®) network, seeks to transform the field of nursing through knowledge, improving quality of care by implementing BPGs developed by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario® (RNAO®) as per the Knowledge to Action method, with an international data system for evaluating results. The programme is led by nurses, establishing an institutional implementation committee and a network of professionals who receive systematic training to carry out their task as champions – to drive the programme forward within their chosen field of implementation [4,5,6].
Several studies have identified and described elements that help facilitate the implementation of EBP in general, as well as barriers that hinder this process. Facilitators include managerial support, academic training, structured EBP training, organisational EBP culture and the existence of a critical mass of EBP mentors [7,8,9]. The most frequently mentioned barriers include: lack of time, rejection of statistics, preference for intuitive and experience-based methods, insufficient resources, lack of solid leadership and the lack of knowledge [7,9,10,11,12].
Regarding the BPSO® framework, this field has not been thoroughly researched. The authors of a study conducted in Australia described a solid implementation and programme execution plan, as well as support from management, as facilitators. The barriers they found included: professional motivation, difficulty finding cover on days staff wished to attend a training course, and the lack of institutional commitment to see through the programme [13].
The evaluation of the implementation of the BPSO® programme in Spain was positive regarding nurse perceptions of work environments, available resources and the possibility for professional development [14].
The implementation of BPGs in a hospital setting entails the involvement of active working groups that will tailor recommendations to their specific setting, and, most importantly, act as ‘guardians’ to ensure adherence to the plan, recording of activity and the training of newly hired nursing staff. Between 2019 and 2024, there have been several working groups, all strategically composed to meet the implementation needs of each of the BPGs. At the time of writing, June 2024, the hospital is in the sustainability phase of three of the BPGs, and the implementation phase of a fourth, boasting 50 active champions spread across the various hospital departments. This study aims to identify the facilitators and barriers identified by a cohort of best practice champion nurses, all actively involved in the implementation of the BPGs of the RNAO®, within the framework of the BPSO® strategy, in a hospital setting.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Setting, and Sampling
To reach consensus among the study population, the modified Delphi method was proposed (two rounds of questions). The study group consisted of 50 nurses who had attended the eight-hour ‘Best Practice Champions Workshop’ and who, at the time of the study, were actively involved in working groups to implement and/or upkeep BPG recommendations by creating materials and protocols, assessing indicators or hosting information sessions in their individual departments. The BPGs in question were: Supporting adults who anticipate or live with an ostomy (n=11); Preventing falls and reducing injury from falls (n=20); Assessment and care of adults at risk for suicidal ideation and behaviour (n=5); and Vascular access (n=14).
The study area was a tertiary care hospital with 777 beds and 918 nursing staff belonging to the Castile & León Health System.
2.2. Instruments
To identify facilitators and barriers, a bibliography search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was conducted using the following MeSH terms: Evidence-based practice; Competence; Barrier; Facilitator; Implementation; Healthcare; and Nurses. Publications had to have been published in the last five years in either English or Spanish, and had to include an analysis of barriers and facilitators encountered by nurses when implementing EBP. From the results, 35 facilitators were identified and 33 barriers, which were then used to create the first round of questions of the Delphi method. Nurses were required to rate how much they agreed with each item on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘Strongly disagree’, 2 being ‘Disagree’, 3 being ‘Neither agree nor disagree’, 4 being ‘Agree’ and 5 being ‘Strongly agree’. When moving onto the second round of the Delphi technique, the questionnaire was redesigned, ordering items based on the mean scores that were obtained in the first round, from highest to lowest. This time, the questionnaire asked about agreement with the obtained score, from 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘Strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘Strongly agree’. Each round was conducted with an interval of one month between them. The rounds were conducted in March and April 2024 and questionnaires were sent to participants through mailing lists of work email addresses, having previously contacted the study population to explain the aim of the study and request their anonymous and voluntary participation.
Sociodemographic and work-based variables were also included.
Consensus on facilitators and barriers was reached using the highest mean values obtained in the first round that also had the highest degree of concordance in the second round.
2.3. Ethical considerations
The anonymity and confidentiality of surveyed participants was maintained at all times, as per Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (GDPR), enshrined in Spanish law under the Spanish Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December, on Personal Data Protection and Guarantee of Digital Rights. The study was approved by the Valladolid Ethics Committee for Research with medicinal products (ECRmp) involving humans under the reference code PI-24-257-C.
2.4. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics software (v.24; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Quantitative variables were expressed as means and standard deviations, and qualitative variables as frequency distributions. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to analyse associations between qualitative variables, while Student’s t-test was used to compare quantitative variables. Pearson’s chi-squared test was also used to identify the degree of concordance in the second round of the Delphi method. Values of p<0.05 were considered as statistically significant.
3. Results
In the first round, 44 nurses responded (88% of the study population), while 39 responded in the second round (78%). The mean respondent age was 42.57 (SD=8.563) with an average of 18.23 (SD=8.118) years of professional experience. Respondents reported having read an average of four scientific articles in the last month (SD=6.324). The majority were women (93.2%) holding a permanent position (61.4%) in the field of healthcare (88.6%). Only 6% reported having had more than 50 hours of EBP training, despite 63.7% holding a postgraduate degree and 56% having been best practice champions for more than one year (Table 1).
Table 2 and Table 3 show the list of facilitators and barriers perceived by nurses that were obtained in the first round, sorted by the highest mean value (above 3.5). The degree of concordance from the second round is also shown comparatively in two columns: one column lists responses of 4 ‘Agree’ or 5 ‘Strongly agree’, while the other lists responses of 1 ‘Strongly disagree’, 2 ‘Disagree’, or 3 ‘Neither agree nor disagree’.
‘Work environment’ (mean=4.55; SD=0.82), ‘Working in a hospital that promotes research’ (mean=4.36; SD=0.83) and ‘Free time during the workday to dedicate to implementation-related tasks (protocols, materials, etc.)’ (mean=4.34; SD=1.12) were the highest scoring facilitators on average and had a significantly higher degree of concordance in the agree vs disagree percentages at p<0.001. There was no consensus on the order of importance of some items, such as the existence of ‘Forums to discuss cases, critical reading or research projects’ (mean=3.82; SD=0.922) and having completed ‘Postgraduate studies’ (mean=3.50; SD=0.849), each of which with an insignificant degree of concordance at p=0.150 and p=0.262, respectively (Table 2).
In terms of barriers, ‘Excessive workload’ (mean=4.43; SD=0.728), ‘Rotations and staff transfers’ (mean=4.34; SD=0.680) and ‘Lack of time’ (mean=4.32; SD=0.708) were the items with the highest mean scores and highest degree of concordance between group members, with p<0.001 in the first two and p=0.002 in the third. ‘Lack of authority to change practice’ (mean=3.73; SD=0.973), ‘Aversion to statistics’ (mean=3.59; SD=1.226), ‘Lack of forums/areas to discuss evidence with colleagues’ (mean=3.55; SD=0.848) and ‘Nursing culture governed by hierarchical rules’ (mean=3.55; SD=1.130), were all items with a low degree of consensus on their position (p>0.05) (Table 3).
4. Discussion
Identifying barriers and facilitators during the implementation process of the recommendations detailed in BPGs, as per the BPSO© programme, is necessary for both this programme’s longevity over time and also its solidification as a cultural institution. This process is considered a key step in defining support strategies that promote change in clinical practice [6,13].
During the evaluation process, it was found that the facilitators agreed on by best practice champion nurses were primarily related to the institutional framework. Nurses felt that management ought to promote a work environment that encourages implementation and allow for: time during the workday to dedicate to implementation-related tasks; support from superiors; involvement of other professional categories; better recognition of research activities; and alignment of EBPs with strategic and institutional goals. This should be a priority for management, given that adopting EBPs improves not only quality of care and healthcare outcomes for patients, but also professional competence in reflective practice, thereby aiding in their professional development – a conclusion echoed by other studies undertaken on the same topic [15,16,17]. Furthermore, management should consider factors implicit to effecting change that are related to organisational aspects, leadership, groups of interest, structures, internal communications and available resources. Consequently, the Implementation of Best Practice Guidelines requires thorough planning of comprehensive strategies to effect progressive cultural change on a professional and institutional level [18].
In this regard, leadership is a key facilitator of the programme, as several previous works have already noted and whose results coincide with those of this study. Autonomy in the decision-making process and the security offered by the best available evidence transform nurses into exemplary leaders of clinical care, which directly translates into professional empowerment and development [19,20]. As a result, this contributes to the creation of better suited working conditions, leading to better safety results for both nurses and patients alike, which, in turn, increases workplace satisfaction [21]. As their field of clinical practice improves, nurses realise that their work is being recognised, leading to a better perception of their working environment compared to nurses who are not best practice champions. The proactive and participative approach of the programme improves interdepartmental relationships. Furthermore, involvement in organisational decision-making and hospital policymaking have been shown to be of significant importance, generating a feeling of belonging in the institution. This sentiment has been previously studied by the authors, in which the positive repercussions that the implementation of BPG recommendations has on clinical practice were discussed [22].
It must be noted that there were some discrepancies, specifically that no degree of concordance was reached on whether ‘Postgraduate studies’ was a facilitator or not. This may be due to the fact that a large proportion of nurses in our sample already had a postgraduate qualification and therefore prioritised extrinsic or institutional factors over intrinsic or personal factors. While it is true that the academic background of nursing may not comparable one-to-one with other sciences, the efforts of today’s professionals have given rise to both professional and academic recognition of the profession, empowering the nursing discipline to implement and follow EBPs with increasing ease, and also tackle the necessary challenges to complete this implementation – though this does not mean they are exempt from future challenges and hurdles [15].
Regarding the barriers perceived by our study population, of particular note were the challenges related to the management of human resources in the Spanish healthcare system and the lack of nurses. Excessive workload, rotations and staff transfers, lack of time or burnout and work dissatisfaction are, without a doubt, significant areas for improvement, alongside unstable work contracts and an ageing population with increased care needs – all of which require new policies that will guarantee the sustainability of the healthcare system [23,24].
Despite clearly being considered significant barriers, as with other studies on the topic, in this study, there was no agreement reached regarding the order of ‘Lack of authority to change practice’ and ‘Nursing culture governed by hierarchical rules’. However, these barriers are considered a recurring theme in nursing practice, requiring close, interprofessional collaboration to develop strategies to combat the situation [25].
All of the aforementioned aspects invite active input from management as a key part of designing institutional policies to promote the main facilitators and minimise the barriers perceived by nurses when implementing evidence-based practice recommendations.
5. Conclusions
The barriers and facilitators perceived by best practice champion nurses mainly lean towards extrinsic or institutional factors over intrinsic or personal factors. As such, management should plan comprehensive strategies that effect gradual change in the culture of the organisation. The BPSO® programme is the best suited framework to translate theoretical knowledge into clinical practice and bring about the required institutional change.
Author Contributions
M.F.C. conducted the literature review. M.F.C. & B.M.G. designed the study. M.F.C., B.M.G, & N.R.G. adapted the Delphi questionnaire in the first and second round, and also analysed the findings. M.F.C., B.M.G., & N.R.G. drafted the final version of the manuscript. N.R.G. adapted the manuscript to the journal’s style requirements. All three authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
Funding
This study received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Valladolid Ethics Committee for Research with medicinal products (ECRmp) involving humans under the reference code PI-24-257-C.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Public Involvement Statement
There was no public involvement in any aspect of this research.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
AI or AI-assisted tools were not used in drafting any aspect of this manuscript.
Acknowledgments
The authors give their sincere thanks to the study participants, the BPSO® Best Practice Champions at Valladolid University Clinical Hospital.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Nascimento A, Jesus É. Nursing Work Environment and Patient Outcomes in a Hospital Context: A Scoping Review. J Nurs Adm. 2020;50(5):261–6. [CrossRef]
- Ayuso-Fernandez MA, Gomez-Rosado JC, Barrientos-Trigo S, Rodríguez-Gómez S, Porcel-Gálvez AM. Impact of the patient-nurse ratio on health outcomes in public hospitals of the Andalusian Health Service. Ecological Study. Enferm Clin. 2021;31(6):344–54. [CrossRef]
- Scott K, McSherry R. Evidence-based nursing: Clarifying the concepts for nurses in practice. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(8):1085–95. [CrossRef]
- Grinspun D. Transforming nursing through knowledge: Progress on the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) best practice guidelines programme. Enferm Clin 2020;30 (3):133-135. [CrossRef]
- Ortuño-Soriano I, Muñoz-Jiménez D, Moreno-Casbas T, Albornos-Muñoz L, González-María E. Evaluation of implementation strategies of the Best Practices Spotlight Organisations (BPSO) Project in Spain. Enferm Clin. 2020;30(3):222–30. [CrossRef]
- Grinspun D, Bajnok I. Transforming nursing through knowledge : best practices for guideline development, implementation science, and evaluation; Sigma Theta Tau International, Indianapolis, USA, 2018; p- 13.
- Melnyk B, Tan A, Hsieh A, Gallagher-Ford L. Evidence-Based Practice Culture and Mentorship Predict EBP Implementation, Nurse Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Stay: Support for the ARCC © Model. Worldviews Evid based Nurs. 2021;18(4):272–81. [CrossRef]
- Galiano A, Simonetti M, Quiroga N, Larrain A. Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based practice model in a new hospital in Chile. J Nurs Manag. 2020;28(7):1748–57. [CrossRef]
- Li S, Cao M, Zhu X, Ford C. Evidence-based practice: Knowledge, attitudes, implementation, facilitators, and barriers among community nurses-systematic review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(39). [CrossRef]
- Ayoubian A, Nasiripour AA, Tabibi SJ, Bahadori M. Evaluation of Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Evidence-Based Practice in the Health Services: A Systematic Review. Galen Med J. 2020;9:1645. [CrossRef]
- Williams BD, Thomas G, Joiner A. Barriers to and Facilitators of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychiatry Core Trainees in Northwest England. Acad Psychiatry. 2021;45(3):315–21. [CrossRef]
- Alqahtani JM, Carsula RP, Alharbi HA, Alyousef SM, Baker OG, Tumala RB. Barriers to Implementing Evidence-Based Practice among Primary Healthcare Nurses in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nurs Reports. 2022;12(2):313–23. [CrossRef]
- Sharplin G, Adelson P, Kennedy K, Williams N, Hewlett R, Wood J, et al. Establishing and Sustaining a Culture of Evidence-Based Practice: An Evaluation of Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing the Best Practice Spotlight Organization Program in the Australian Healthcare Context. Healthcare. 2019 ;7(142). [CrossRef]
- Ruzafa-Martínez M, Hernández-Méndez S, Garcia-Gonzalez J, Leal-Costa C, Martínez-González MÁ, Ramos-Morcillo AJ. Changes in nurse job outcomes after 4 years of a Best Practice Spotlight Organization® programme implementation in the Spanish National Health Context. J Nurs Manag. 2020;29(4):699-709. [CrossRef]
- Kerr H, Rainey D. Addressing the current challenges of adopting evidence-based practice in nursing. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(16):970–4. [CrossRef]
- Connor L, Dean J, McNett M, Tydings DM, Shrout A, Gorsuch PF, et al. Evidence-based practice improves patient outcomes and healthcare system return on investment: Findings from a scoping review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2023;20(1):6–15. [CrossRef]
- Speroni KG, McLaughlin MK, Friesen MA. Use of Evidence-based Practice Models and Research Findings in Magnet-Designated Hospitals Across the United States: National Survey Results. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2020;17(2):98–107. [CrossRef]
- Crawford CL, Rondinelli J, Zuniga S, Valdez RM, Tze-Polo L, Titler MG. Barriers and facilitators influencing EBP readiness: Building organizational and nurse capacity. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2023;20(1):27-36. [CrossRef]
- McNett M, Tucker S, Zadvinskis I, Tolles D, Thomas B, Gorsuch P, et al. A Qualitative Force Field Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice in Healthcare Using an Implementation Framework. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2022;2(3):195–208. [CrossRef]
- Aloisio LD, Graham N, Grinspun D, Naik S, Coughlin M, Medeiros C, et al. Indicators to measure implementation and sustainability of nursing best practice guidelines: A mixed methods analysis. Heliyon. 2023;9(9):e19983. [CrossRef]
- Boamah SA, Spence Laschinger HK, Wong C, Clarke S. Effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction and patient safety outcomes. Nurs Outlook . 2018;66(2):180–9. [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Castro M, López M, Martín-Gil B, Rodríguez-Soberado P, Rivas-González N, Muñoz-Alvaredo L, et al. Nurses’ evidence-based practice competence and hospital practice environment after specific training under the Best Practice Spotlight Organization® Programme. A cross-sectional study. Nurse Educ Today. 2023:126:105808. [CrossRef]
- Hernández Pascual J. The challenges of human resources governance in public healthcare. SESPAS Report 2024. Gac Sanit. 2024;38:102377. [CrossRef]
- Galbany-Estragués P, Millán-Martínez P. Shortage of nurses in Spain: from the global case to particular situation. SESPAS Report 2024. Gac Sanit. 2024;38:102376. [CrossRef]
- Clarke V, Lehane E, Mulcahy H, Cotter P. Nurse Practitioners’ Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Into Routine Care: A Scoping Review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2021;18(3):180–9. [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Description of the study sample.
| Variable | n | % | |
| Sex | Male | 3 | 6.8% |
| Female | 41 | 93.2% | |
| Employment status | Locum | 17 | 38.6% |
| Permanent | 27 | 61.4% | |
| The field in which they carry out their role is | Healthcare | 39 | 88.6% |
| Teaching | 2 | 4.5% | |
| Management | 6 | 13.6% | |
| Postgraduate level | Specialism | 12 | 27.3% |
| Master’s | 16 | 36.4% | |
| None | 16 | 36.4% | |
| Specific Training in EBP and/or Research Methodology in recent months/years | From 8-50 hours | 14 | 31.8% |
| More than 50 hours | 6 | 13.6% | |
| When did they join the Best Practice Champions network | In the last year | 18 | 20.5% |
| In the last one to three years | 14 | 31.8% | |
| More than three years ago | 12 | 25.0% | |
Table 2.
Mean scores of facilitators obtained in the first round and a comparison of agreement vs disagreement with the scores obtained in the second round.
Table 2.
Mean scores of facilitators obtained in the first round and a comparison of agreement vs disagreement with the scores obtained in the second round.
| FACILITATORS | First round (n=44) | Second round (n=39) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disagree (1,2,3) | Agree (4,5) | ||||||
| Mean | Standard deviation | Disagree N |
% | Agree N (%) |
% | p-value | |
| 1-Work environment | 4.55 | 0.820 | 7 | 17.9% | 32 | 82.1% | <0.001 |
| 2-Working in a hospital that promotes research | 4.36 | 0.838 | 5 | 12.8% | 34 | 87.2% | <0.001 |
| 3-Free time during the workday to dedicate to implementation-related tasks (protocols, materials, etc.) | 4.34 | 1.119 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 4-Support from superiors | 4.30 | 0.954 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 5-Better recognition of research activity | 4.27 | 0.949 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 6-Support from site management | 4.25 | 0.918 | 6 | 15.4% | 33 | 84.6% | <0.001 |
| 7-Guidance when developing research projects | 4.23 | 1.008 | 6 | 15.4% | 33 | 84.6% | <0.001 |
| 8-Evidence Based Practice aligns with site objectives | 4.20 | 0.795 | 7 | 17.9% | 32 | 82.1% | <0.001 |
| 9-Involvement of all professional categories | 4.20 | 0.851 | 7 | 17.9% | 32 | 82.1% | <0.001 |
| 10-Suitable environment | 4.20 | 0.878 | 9 | 23.1% | 30 | 76.9% | 0.001 |
| 11-Having a colleague who is an Evidence Based Practice Champion | 4.20 | 0.878 | 6 | 15.4% | 33 | 84.6% | <0.001 |
| 12-Nurse leadership | 4.16 | 0.939 | 10 | 25.6% | 29 | 74.4% | 0.002 |
| 13-A rewards system for motivated nurses | 4.16 | 1.119 | 16 | 41.0% | 23 | 59.0% | 0.262 |
| 14-Institutional support | 4.14 | 0.852 | 9 | 23.1% | 30 | 76.9% | 0.001 |
| 15-Holding sufficient authority to implement BPG recommendations | 4.11 | 0.868 | 10 | 25.6% | 29 | 74.4% | 0.002 |
| 16-Dissemination of works resulting from implementation activities, conferences or publications | 4.07 | 0.900 | 11 | 28.2% | 28 | 71.8% | 0.006 |
| 17-Flexibility to implement practice | 4.05 | 0.861 | 11 | 28.2% | 28 | 71.8% | 0.006 |
| 18-Communication and training within the organisation based on the results of research | 4.05 | 0.987 | 12 | 30.8% | 27 | 69.2% | 0.016 |
| 19-Retention of talent by the organisation | 4.05 | 1.099 | 15 | 38.5% | 24 | 61.5% | 0.150 |
| 20-Evidence based organisational policies and protocols | 4.02 | 0.902 | 15 | 38.5% | 24 | 61.5% | 0.150 |
| 21-Access to scientific resources at work | 4.02 | 0.927 | 13 | 33.3% | 26 | 66.7% | 0.037 |
| 22-Access to computers and the internet at work | 4.02 | 1.171 | 9 | 23.1% | 30 | 76.9% | 0.001 |
| 23-Sufficient resources | 4.00 | 0.988 | 7 | 17.9% | 32 | 82.1% | <0.001 |
| 24-Ongoing education in Evidence Based Practice | 3.95 | 1.056 | 12 | 30.8% | 27 | 69.2% | 0.016 |
| 25-Funding | 3.95 | 1.099 | 14 | 35.9% | 25 | 64.1% | 0.078 |
| 26-Having mentors | 3.93 | 0.900 | 13 | 33.3% | 26 | 66.7% | 0.037 |
| 27-Collaborative relationships of mutual support with other professionals | 3.91 | 1.053 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 28-Research training | 3.91 | 1.053 | 6 | 15.4% | 33 | 84.6% | <0.001 |
| 29-Collaboration between the hospital and the university | 3.86 | 0.878 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 30-A trusting professional relationship | 3.84 | 0.987 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 31-Forums to discuss cases, critical reading or research projects | 3.82 | 0.922 | 15 | 38.5% | 24 | 61.5% | 0.150 |
| 32-Workplace culture | 3.75 | 1.014 | 11 | 28.2% | 28 | 71.8% | 0.006 |
| 33-Better administrative support | 3.73 | 1.169 | 12 | 30.8% | 27 | 69.2% | 0.016 |
| 34-Postgraduate studies | 3.50 | 0.849 | 16 | 41.0% | 23 | 59.0% | 0.262 |
Table 3.
Mean scores of barriers obtained in the first round and a comparison of agreement vs disagreement with the scores obtained in the second round.
Table 3.
Mean scores of barriers obtained in the first round and a comparison of agreement vs disagreement with the scores obtained in the second round.
| BARRIERS | First round (n=44) | Second round (n=39) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strongly disagree; Disagree; Neither agree nor disagree | Agree or Strongly agree | ||||||
| Mean | Standard deviation | N | % | N | % | p-value | |
| 1-Excessive workload | 4.43 | 0.728 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 2-Rotations and staff transfers | 4.34 | 0.680 | 6 | 15.4% | 33 | 84.6% | <0.001 |
| 3-Lack of time | 4.32 | 0.708 | 10 | 25.6% | 29 | 74.4% | 0.002 |
| 4-Lack of incentive/remuneration | 4.30 | 0.823 | 12 | 30.8% | 27 | 69.2% | 0.016 |
| 5-Lack of staff | 4.23 | 1.008 | 8 | 20.5% | 31 | 79.5% | <0.001 |
| 6-Burnout and work dissatisfaction | 4.20 | 0.668 | 13 | 33.3% | 26 | 66.7% | 0.037 |
| 7-Insufficient funding for healthcare research projects | 4.07 | 0.789 | 14 | 35.9% | 25 | 64.1% | 0.078 |
| 8-Resistence to change | 3.93 | 1.108 | 11 | 28.2% | 28 | 71.8% | 0.006 |
| 9-Culture of ‘we’ve always done it this way’ | 3.93 | 1.129 | 9 | 23.1% | 30 | 76.9% | 0.001 |
| 10-Insufficient time to find and read research projects | 3.91 | 1.096 | 13 | 33.3% | 26 | 66.7% | 0.037 |
| 11-Lack of authority to change practice | 3.73 | 0.973 | 17 | 43.6% | 22 | 56.4% | 0.423 |
| 12-Organisational factors | 3.64 | 0.750 | 10 | 25.6% | 29 | 74.4% | 0.002 |
| 13-Lack of knowledge to interpret scientific evidence | 3.61 | 1.039 | 13 | 33.3% | 26 | 66.7% | 0.037 |
| 14-Aversion to statistics | 3.59 | 1.226 | 16 | 41.0% | 23 | 59.0% | 0.262 |
| 15-Poorly defined priorities | 3.55 | 0.875 | 14 | 35.9% | 25 | 64.1% | 0.078 |
| 16-Lack of forums/areas to discuss evidence with colleagues | 3.55 | 0.848 | 16 | 41.0% | 23 | 59.0% | 0.262 |
| 17-Nursing culture governed by hierarchical rules | 3.55 | 1.130 | 15 | 38.5% | 24 | 61.5% | 0.150 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated