Evaluation Process
The evaluation of evidence-based needs, implementation and outcomes is a vital part of the research process, according to Jacobs et al (2012). The need for evidence-based research is evaluated through Formative Evaluation; the implementation through Process Evaluation; and the outcomes by Impact Evaluation. The following is the Process Evaluation for the initiative of Daily Safety Briefings as a strategy to develop high reliability and reduce errors affecting patient safety.
For many years the local organization has collected data, information that reflects patient and staff satisfaction, patient demographics, length of stay, and critical incidents. Each critical incident is logged using MIDAS software; allowing for documentation of the event, assignment of resources, follow up of the issue, and eventual closure. This method of data collection will continue unchanged, with standardized reports produced at weekly and quarterly intervals showing length of time from event to closure, the length of time for each person to address their assigned part of the follow up, and patterns of events over the course of the year. The effects of the daily safety briefing will be reflected in this information. However, in order to confirm the effects are real, rather than one-off occurrences, the results will be tracked over a period of time with the hope that error rates will continue to trend towards zero. Where possible, the rates will be normalized. For example, number of medication errors per thousand doses given throughout the organization, likewise for laboratory errors, central line infections, peripheral line infiltrates etc. Again, these reports are currently generated, so direct comparisons of current numbers to historical data is possible. The historical reports have already been assessed, and show constant rates of errors over the years 2012 to 2015 (inclusive). This suggests historical reliability for MIDAS, and according to Phelan and Wren (2006) demonstrates test-retest reliability for consecutive years, suggesting that MIDAS is a stable tool for this purpose. Phelan and Wren (2006) describe that construct validity has been achieved, because MIDAS is specifically engineered to measure and correlate errors. Applicability, according to Atkins et al (2011), should be addressed in four steps. Firstly, a PICOT question should be formalized that specifically addresses the issue. As previously described, the question being asked is: In the nursing population do daily senior-management safety briefings facilitate eradication of errors and faster follow-up of safety issues, compared to other forms of communication, over a six month period? The next step, according to Atkins et al (2011) is to systematically identify key characteristics from the data. MIDAS uses a classification system already which eliminates the chances of medications errors being accidentally categorized as pressure ulcers for example, so there is an automated process currently in place. Step three in the process is to acknowledge limitations. In this situation there are very definite limitations that should be exposed; the inherent risk of staff not reporting issues and external factors that may increase errors, such as staffing levels. Step four is to summarize a body of evidence …show more content…
If the strategy shows no improvement it can be abandoned with minimal disruption to the stakeholders, at which point the evidence will provide an answer to the PICOT question. Should the process yield positive results, the initiative can serve to influence departmental huddles, nursing governance, or potentially be used as a model for other
The evaluation of evidence-based needs, implementation and outcomes is a vital part of the research process, according to Jacobs et al (2012). The need for evidence-based research is evaluated through Formative Evaluation; the implementation through Process Evaluation; and the outcomes by Impact Evaluation. The following is the Process Evaluation for the initiative of Daily Safety Briefings as a strategy to develop high reliability and reduce errors affecting patient safety.
For many years the local organization has collected data, information that reflects patient and staff satisfaction, patient demographics, length of stay, and critical incidents. Each critical incident is logged using MIDAS software; allowing for documentation of the event, assignment of resources, follow up of the issue, and eventual closure. This method of data collection will continue unchanged, with standardized reports produced at weekly and quarterly intervals showing length of time from event to closure, the length of time for each person to address their assigned part of the follow up, and patterns of events over the course of the year. The effects of the daily safety briefing will be reflected in this information. However, in order to confirm the effects are real, rather than one-off occurrences, the results will be tracked over a period of time with the hope that error rates will continue to trend towards zero. Where possible, the rates will be normalized. For example, number of medication errors per thousand doses given throughout the organization, likewise for laboratory errors, central line infections, peripheral line infiltrates etc. Again, these reports are currently generated, so direct comparisons of current numbers to historical data is possible. The historical reports have already been assessed, and show constant rates of errors over the years 2012 to 2015 (inclusive). This suggests historical reliability for MIDAS, and according to Phelan and Wren (2006) demonstrates test-retest reliability for consecutive years, suggesting that MIDAS is a stable tool for this purpose. Phelan and Wren (2006) describe that construct validity has been achieved, because MIDAS is specifically engineered to measure and correlate errors. Applicability, according to Atkins et al (2011), should be addressed in four steps. Firstly, a PICOT question should be formalized that specifically addresses the issue. As previously described, the question being asked is: In the nursing population do daily senior-management safety briefings facilitate eradication of errors and faster follow-up of safety issues, compared to other forms of communication, over a six month period? The next step, according to Atkins et al (2011) is to systematically identify key characteristics from the data. MIDAS uses a classification system already which eliminates the chances of medications errors being accidentally categorized as pressure ulcers for example, so there is an automated process currently in place. Step three in the process is to acknowledge limitations. In this situation there are very definite limitations that should be exposed; the inherent risk of staff not reporting issues and external factors that may increase errors, such as staffing levels. Step four is to summarize a body of evidence …show more content…
If the strategy shows no improvement it can be abandoned with minimal disruption to the stakeholders, at which point the evidence will provide an answer to the PICOT question. Should the process yield positive results, the initiative can serve to influence departmental huddles, nursing governance, or potentially be used as a model for other