Review your problem or issue (Pressure Ulcer Prevention) and the study materials (Attached) to formulate a PICOT question for your capstone project change proposal. A PICOT question starts with a desi

Review your problem or issue (Pressure Ulcer Prevention) and the study materials (Attached) to formulate a PICOT question for your capstone project change proposal. A PICOT question starts with a desi
Course Material Here are the websites to access the course material: http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/HowtoImprove/ScienceofImprovementTestingChanges.aspx https://www.cebm.net/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140151/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912019/ https://nursing-theory.org/ https://www.currentnursing.com/nursing_theory/ Please let me know if you have any questions on this. Thanks.
Review your problem or issue (Pressure Ulcer Prevention) and the study materials (Attached) to formulate a PICOT question for your capstone project change proposal. A PICOT question starts with a desi
The effect of a translating research into practice intervention to promote use of evidence-based fall prevention interventions in hospitalized adults: A prospective pre–post implementation study in the U.S. Marita G. Titler, PhD, FAAN a,⁎, Paul Conlon, Pharm D, JD b, Margaret A. Reynolds, PhD, FAAN b, Robert Ripley, PharmD, BCPS b, Alex Tsodikov, PhD c, Deleise S. Wilson, PhD, RN a, Mary Montie, PhD a aSchool of Nursing, University of Michigan, USAbTrinity Health, Novi, Michigan, USAcDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, USA abstract article info Article history: Received 3 August 2015 Accepted 17 December 2015 Keywords: Falls Fall injuries Fall prevention Hospitals Implementation Translation Background:Falls are a major public health problem internationally. Many hospitals have implemented fall risk assessment tools, but few have implemented interventions to mitigate patient-specific fall risks. Little research has been done to examine the effect of implementing evidence-based fall prevention interventions to mitigate patient-specific fall risk factors in hospitalized adults. Objectives:To evaluate the impact of implementing, in 3 U.S. hospitals, evidence-based fall prevention interven- tions targeted to patient-specific fall risk factors (Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle). Fall rates, fall in- jury rates, types of fall injuries and adoption of the Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle were compared prior to and following implementation. Design:A prospective pre–post implementation cohort design. Setting:Thirteen adult medical-surgical units from three community hospitals in the Midwest region of the U.S. Participants:Nurses who were employed at least 20 hours/week, provided direct patient care, and licensed as an RN (n = 157 pre; 140 post); and medical records of patients 21 years of age or older, who received care on the study unit for more than 24 hours during the designated data collection period (n = 390 pre and post). Methods:A multi-faceted Translating Research Into Practice Intervention was used to implement the Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle composed of evidence-based fall prevention interventions designed to miti- gate patient-specific fall risks. Dependent variables (fall rates, fall injury rates, fall injury type, use of Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle) were collected at baseline, and following completion of the 15 month imple- mentation phase. Nurse questionnaires included the Stage of Adoption Scale, and the Use of Research Findings in Practice Scale to measure adoption of evidence-based fall prevention practices. A Medical Record Abstract Form was used to abstract data about use of targeted risk-specific fall prevention interventions. Number of falls, and number and types of fall injuries were collected for each study unit for 3 months pre- and post- implementation. Data were analyzed using multivariate analysis. Results:Fall rates declined 22% (p= 0.09). Types of fall injuries changed from major and moderate to minor in- juries. Fall injury rates did not decline. Use of fall prevention interventions improved significantly (pb0.001) for mobility, toileting, cognition, and risk reduction for injury, but did not change for those targeting medications. Conclusions:Using the Translating Research Into Practice intervention promoted use of many evidence-based fall prevention interventions to mitigate patient-specific fall risk factors in hospitalized adults. © 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. 1. Introduction Falls are the most common reported patient safety incident in hospi- tals (Anonymous, 2011; Oliver, 2008a; Rubenstein, 2006), and are a major public health problem internationally (Caldevilla et al., 2013;Higaonna, 2015; Quigley & White, 2013; Shmueli et al., 2014). Up to 30% of falls result in injury including fractures, soft tissue trauma and death (Oliver, 2008a; Rubenstein, 2006). Additional consequences include prolonged hospital stay, discharge to long term care facilities, increased hospital costs, patient anxiety, and loss of confidence in mo- bility and activities of daily living (Boltz et al., 2014; Caldevilla et al., 2013; Oliver et al., 2004; Rubenstein, 2006; Tinetti & Kumar, 2010). Hospitals have instituted fall risk assessment scales to identify pa- tients at risk for falls followed by implementation of general fall Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 ⁎Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 734 763 1188. E-mail address:[email protected](M.G. Titler). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2015.12.004 0897-1897/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. Contents lists available atScienceDirect Applied Nursing Research journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/apnr prevention interventions (e.g., putting signs on the door for those at risk) (Caldevilla et al., 2013; Oliver, 2008b). Although fall prevention in- terventions should be customized to the individual’s identified risk fac- tors (Anonymous, 2011; Cameron et al., 2012), hospitals have not yet promoted use of fall prevention interventions targeted to patient- specific risks (e.g., ambulation or refer to physical therapy for unsteady gait) (Coussement et al., 2008; Hempel et al., 2013; Oliver, Healey, & Haines, 2010). Because falls are complex and risks for falls are multifac- torial, beneficial effects of fall reduction interventions may increase when interventions target patient-specific fall risk factors (Anonymous, 2011; Cameron et al., 2012; Coussement et al., 2008; Tinetti, 2003). Few studies however have examined the effect of implementing evidence-based fall prevention interventions to mitigate patient-specific fall risk factors in hospitalized adults (Dykes et al., 2010). The purpose of this 18 month study was to implement evidence- based fall prevention interventions targeted to patient-specificfallrisk factors (Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle) and evaluate the impact on reducing falls and fall related injuries. A multifaceted Trans- lating Research Into Practice intervention was used to promote uptake and use of the Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle in 13 adult medical surgical units in three community hospitals in the U.S. Specific aims of the study were to (1) compare fall rates, fall injury rates, and types of fall injuries prior to and following implementation of the evidence-based Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle, and (2) evaluate adoption of the evidence-based Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle. 2. Fall Prevention Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework used in this study was informed by a tax- onomy that classifies types of fall prevention interventions (Cameron et al., 2012; Hook & Winchel, 2006; McCarter-Bayer, Bayer, & Hall, 2005). Interventions are conceptualized as Universal Fall Precautions (e.g., reducing environmental risks for falls such as patient room and hall free of clutter), General Fall Prevention Interventions (e.g., bedside table, call light and other personnel items within reach) and Targeted Individual Risk-Specific Interventions (interventions that target patient-specific fall risk factors). Individual risk factors that consistently contribute to falls in hospi- talized adults are gait instability and lower limb weakness; urinary in- continence, frequency or need for toileting assistance; previous fall history; agitation/confusion or impaired judgment; and polypharmacy and prescription of“culprit”drugs, in particular centrally acting seda- tives and hypnotics (Oliver et al., 2004; Titler et al., 2011). Mitigating as many of these risk factors as possible is an effective way to reduce falling (Cameron et al., 2012; Oliver, 2008a). The Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle, developed for this study, focused on interventions that reduce or modify patient-specific fall risk factors as outlined inTable 1. Fall prevention interventions were grouped by categories of risk to address (1) previous falls, (2) mo- bility limitations, (3) elimination, (4) medications, (5) factors that in- crease risk for serious injury from a fall (e.g., anticoagulants), and (6) cognitive and mental status. Some fall prevention interventions such as purposeful rounding are effective to address multiple risk fac- tors (e.g., mobility impairments, elimination, comfort) (Fischer et al., 2005; Woodard, 2009 ). Others such as physical therapy referral, passive and active range of motions, and ambulation are important interven- tions targeted to mobility impairments, a risk factor for falls as well as functional decline (Markey & Brown, 2002; Ross & Morris, 2010; Tucker, Molsberger, & Clark, 2004). Medication management addresses vigi- lance and modification of types and number of medications that pa- tients receive as well as the time of the day they are administered (e.g., diuretics) (Agostini, Concato, & Inouye, 2008; Agostini, Zhang, & Inouye, 2007). Medication reviews with pharmacist are helpful in de- creasing falls (P.P.S. Advisory, 2008).3. Methods A prospective, pre–post cohort implementation design using a partic- ipatory partnership research approach was used for this study. We chose a participatory partnership approach to foster engagement, ownership of thestudy,aswellasuseoffindings to improve quality of care (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Gold & Taylor, 2007; Green, Daniel, & Novick, 2001). 3.1. Setting The study setting was three community hospitals in the Midwest re- gion of the U.S. representing small (90 acute care beds), medium (243 Table 1 Targeted risk factor fall prevention bundle. Common risk factors⁎ Fall reduction interventions suggested for each risk factor type⁎⁎ Mobility(gait instability, lower limb weakness or required assistance getting out of bed)1. Ambulate 3 to 4 times per day with assistance as needed unless contraindicated. 2. Refer to Physical Therapy for assessment and gait and strength training as needed. 3. Active range of motion three times per day 4. Minimize use of immobilizing equipment (e.g., indwelling urinary catheters, restraints) 5. Assure proper assist equipment (e.g., walker, cane) is readily available and in proper working condition Elimination: Fecal or urinary incontinence(urgency, need for toileting assistance, diuretics)1. Schedule toileting and assistance to the bathroom (e.g., every two hours) 2. Bedside commode available for use 3. Administer diuretics before 5 p.m. to minimize nighttime toileting 4. Look for signs of urinary tract infec- tion and notify physician 5. Stay within arm’s reach during toileting Medications(sedatives, anti- depressants, anticonvulsants, benzodiazepines and polypharmacy)1. Pharmacy review of medications for recommendations 2. Review medications to minimize number. 3. Assist with toileting prior to administration of analgesics unless pain is too severe. Cognition/mental status(agitation, confusion, disorientation, cognitive impairment,)1. Delirium screen—use a delirium screening tool to assess 2. If possible avoid high risk drugs (e.g., opiates, sedatives, antidepressants) 3. Monitor electrolytes 4. Encourage nighttime sleep—use non- pharmacological mechanismsfirst 5. Encourage use of visual aids (e.g., glasses); use adaptive equipment such as large illuminated telephone key pads, andfluorescent tape on call button with reinforcement to use call button. 6. Assess pain control at regular intervals 7. Rounding every 1–2hours Risk for serious injury from a fall (osteoporosis or osteoporosis risk factors, medications/anticoagulants, postoperative.)1. Indicate as high risk for injury from fall 2. Conduct hour toileting rounds 3. Use low bed (6 inches from thefloor) 4. Consider placing a bedside mat on the floor when patient is in bed. 5. Assist with toileting prior to administration of analgesics. ⁎ Factors repeatedly found as significant risk factors for falls in hospitalized older adults (Oliver et al., 2004; Tinetti & Kumar, 2010). ⁎⁎ Suggested interventions for each risk factor group (Cameron et al., 2012; Cumming, 2002; Dykes et al., 2010; Fischer et al., 2005; Healey et al., 2004; Hook & Winchel, 2006; Inouye, Brown, & Tinetti, 2009; Inouye et al., 2000; Oliver et al., 2004, 2007; Quigley et al., 2009; Ross & Morris, 2010; Shever et al., 2011; Tzeng, 2011).53 M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 acute care beds) and large (471 acute care beds) hospitals. Criteria for site inclusion were (1) acute care community hospital, (2) availability of at least one adult medical, surgical or medical-surgical unit, and (3) and interest in reducing falls. Thirteen adult medical-surgical units from these 3 hospitals were in- vited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were critical care, ob- stetrics and pediatric units. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from the University of Michigan, as well as corresponding review boards at the participating hospitals. 3.2. Subjects Nurses from the study units who met inclusion criteria were ran- domly selected from a list of eligible subjects to receive questionnaires prior to and following implementation of the Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle. Inclusion criteria for nurses were: (1) provided di- rect patient care on the study unit, (2) licensed as a registered nurse (RN), and (3) worked an average of 20 hours or more per week (.50 Full Time Equivalent). Medical records of a randomly selected group of patients who met the following inclusion criteria were abstracted to determine what targeted, individual risk-specific fall prevention interventions were used for each patient: (1) age≥21 years of age, (2) resided on the study unitN24 hours, and (3) care was received on the study unit during the designated data abstraction period. Medical records were abstracted for each day from admission to discharge from the study unit. Ten records/per unit/month reflecting 3 months of care delivered prior to implementation and 3 months at the end of implementation were abstracted (390 records at baseline; 390 records post-implementation). 3.3. Implementation Intervention A Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) multifaceted implemen- tation intervention (seeFig. 1) was used to promote uptake and use of the fall prevention bundle, and was guided by the Translation Research Model (Titler, 2010; Titler & Everett, 2001; Titler et al., 2009) developed from Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Framework (Rogers, 2010). The Translation Research Model addresses four areas that effect adoption of evidence in practice: thecharacteristicsof the evidence-based clinical topic (e.g., the fall prevention bundle), and how it iscommunicatedto usersin thesocial system(e.g., hospital, patient care unit) (Rogers, 2010; Titler et al., 2009).The Translating Research Into Practice intervention, depicted in Fig. 1, consisted of multiple implementation strategies, organized by the Translation Research Model, and informed by prior research (Birken, Lee, & Weiner, 2012; Bradley et al., 2004; Dobbins et al., 2009a, 2009b; Dogherty et al., 2012; Dougherty & Conway, 2008; Farm- er et al., 2008; Feldman & McDonald, 2004; Feldman et al., 2005; Flodgren et al., 2011; Forsetlund et al., 2009; Gifford et al., 2007, 2011; Greenhalgh et al., 2005; Grimshaw et al., 2006; Hysong, Best, & Pugh, 2006; Ivers et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2009; Katz et al., 2009; Murtaugh et al., 2005; Ploeg et al., 2010; Rogers, 2010; Stetler et al., 2009; Titler, 2010; Titler et al., 2009). It was implemented over 15 months, as outlined inTable 2. To address thesocial system, a 60 minute meeting with the Chief Nursing Officer of each hospital was held at the beginning of implementation to overview the study, select the site opinion leader, and overview fall prevention interventions that mitigate patient- specific fall risk factors. All sites had an institution fall prevention quality improvement committee and the sites were encouraged to incorporate this project into the committee’s work. A 60 minute education program was provided for the nurse managers of the study units to review the study, overview fall prevention interventions to mitigate patient- specific fall risks, and to explain the expectations of the site opinion leader and unit-based change champions. To address the characteristics of the clinical topic, (1) a set of six quick reference guides to assist clini- cians with clinical decision-making were developed and organized by risk factor categories with suggested fall prevention interventions to ad- dress each; and (2) a set of 9 posters were developed about falls, patient-specific fall risk factors and fall prevention interventions to mit- igate these risks. The posters were used in education of staff and posted in key areas on patient care units such as medication rooms and nurses’ stations. To addresscommunication, a nurse opinion leader for each hos- pital and nurse change champion for each of the 13 study units were se- lected in collaboration with the Chief Nursing Officer and Nurse Managers. A two-day train-the-trainer program for the opinion leaders and change champions was held with the overall purpose of increasing their knowledge and skills in fall prevention interventions to mitigate patient-specific fall risk factors, and to develop an implementation ac- tion plan for their respective practice sites. Staff education was done at each site by the opinion leader and change champions using inservices, point of care coaching with staff, and imparting knowledge through unit bulletin boards. Seven outreach visits to each of the hospitals were done by thefirst author in conjunction with the site opinion leader. These visits included rounding on each of the study units to address staff ques- tions, reviewing progress in implementation of the fall prevention inter- ventions, and discussion of strategies to promote use of the fall Characteristics of Clinical Topic:Fall PreventionQRGs Posters CommunicationOpinion Leaders Change Champion Staff Education Outreach Visits Train-the-Trainer Program Social System:Hospital/UnitMeeting with CNO Educational program for nurse managers Adoption: Outcomes & Processes MeasuresFall rates Fall injuries Use of risk-specific fall prevention interventions Users of the EBPPerformance gap assessment Audit and feedback Teleconferences Fig. 1.Translation Research Model. 54M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 prevention practices. To address theuserscomponent of the model, we used performance gap assessment, audit and feedback, and monthly teleconferences. Performance gap assessment informs practitioners, at the beginning of change, about a practice performance and opportuni- ties for improvement (Titler et al., 2009). We provided unit fall rates, and types of fall injuries during the train-the-trainer program and used this as a focal point of discussion for improving fall prevention practices. Audit and feedback is ongoing auditing of performance indi- cators (e.g., use of fall prevention practices to mitigate patient-specific risks) and discussing thefindings with practitioners during the practice change (Ivers et al., 2012). The change champions of each unit complet- ed audits offive randomly selected medical records per month to ascer- tain if patient-specific fall risk factors were present and if so, were fall prevention interventions implemented to mitigate the specificriskfac- tors. Completed audits were sent to the project office. Bar graphs were then developed regarding number of patient days with a specific fall risk (e.g., mobility issues) and the number of patient days with imple- mentation of corresponding risk-specific fall prevention interventions (e.g., physical therapy referral; ambulation). These were discussed with staff during each of the outreach visits. Monthly 60 minute tele- conferences among the opinion leaders and change champions from the study units were conducted to share implementation strategies and problem-solve issues that arose. 3.4. Dependent Variables and Instruments The dependent variables for aim 1 were: (1) fall rates; (2) fall injury rates; and (3) types of fall injuries. A fall was defined as an unplanned descent to thefloor, and was calculated, at the unit level, by the number of inpatient falls multiplied by 1000 and divided by the total number of inpatient days (Anonymous, 2004). Types of fall injuries were defined as minor (needs application of dressing, ice, cleaning of a wound, limb elevation, topical medication), moderate (results in suturing, steri- strips, fracture, or splinting), major (results in surgery, casting, or trac- tion), and death (as a result of the fall) (Anonymous, 2004). A fall injury empirical rate was calculated by multiplying the number of inpatient falls with injuries by 1000 and dividing by total number of inpatient days (Anonymous, 2004). The variables for aim 2 were: (1) number and type of risk-specificin- terventions (e.g., ambulation with assistance; physical therapy referral) delivered within and across each risk category (e.g., mobility); and (2) RNs level of adoption of the Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle. A Medical Record Abstract Form and detailed directions were designed to abstract data from medical records about use of fall preven- tion interventions that targeted patient-specific fall risk for each pa- tient/medical record. Medical record abstraction is used by other investigators and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to col- lect data on processes of care (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Ser- vices: CMS.gov., 2014; Titler et al., 2009). The Medical Record Abstract Form was reviewed by 3 experts in fall prevention and then tested with 20 medical records for completeness and clarity. The MedicalRecord Abstract Form and detailed instructions were then tested for inter-rater and intra-rater reliability using 30 medical records resulting in reliability of .92 and .95, respectively. Medical record data were used to calculate the number and type of risk-specificinterventions (e.g., ambulation with assistance; physical therapy referral) delivered within and across each risk category (e.g., mobility; elimination) by number of patient days. The RNs level of adoption of the targeted fall prevention interven- tions was measured by theStage of Adoption Instrumentand the Use of Research Findings in Practice Scale. The Stage of Adoption Instrument is based on Rogers’(Rogers, 2010) diffusion of innovation model, and measures stages of awareness, persuasion, and implementation for four evidence-based, fall prevention practices that target individual risk factors: ambulation; medication review; delirium screening; and post-fall huddle. It is scored on a 0 (low stage of adoption) to 4 (imple- mentation) scale. Internal consistency is .95 to .76 with test–retest reli- ability (one week) of .83 (Rutledge & Donaldson, 1995; Rutledge et al., 1996; Titler et al., 2009). The Use of Research Findings in Practice Scale was used to measure nurses self-reported use of researchfindings for targeted risk factor fall prevention interventions (knowledge to im- plementation). Content validity and test–retest reliability (r = .87) have been demonstrated (Meyer & Goes, 1988; Titler et al., 2009). Nurses rate on a 9-point, Guttman type scale, the extent that they use evidence- based fall prevention interventions targeted to patient-specific risk fac- tors to prevent or reduce falls. Each individual receives a score of 0–9 with lower scores reflecting knowledge awareness stage of adoption and higher scores reflecting implementation/use (Meyer & Goes, 1988; Titler et al., 2009). 3.5. Data Collection Procedures The number of falls, number of injuries from falls, type of injuries from falls, and number of patient days per month were sent to the pro- ject director via secure electronicfiles for each of the study units for a 3 month period at baseline, midpoint and at the end of the implementa- tion phase. Medical record abstractions were conducted for care delivered 3 months prior to implementation (baseline) and at end of the imple- mentation phase. The project director received a list of all eligible sub- jects/medical records from each study unit for each data collection period (baseline; post-implementation). Ten medical records per month were randomly selected for each study unit, using SPSS (SPSS, 1999) to generate a random sequence of medical records for each data collection period, and the list of eligible records were sent to the medical records department of each site. The trained research assistants were then provided access to the randomly selected medical records, and after confirming inclusion criteria of each record, data were abstracted using the Medical Record Abstract Form. A list of nurses who met the inclusion criteria for each study unit was sent to the project director by the designated human resource person at each site. Thirty nurses per unit were randomly selected from this list. Table 2 TRIP intervention. TRIP intervention implementation strategies Translation research model component Time during implementation phase of the study Meeting with CNO and education of nurse managers of study units Social system Month 1 Selection of opinion leaders and unit-based change champions Communication Month 1 Train-the trainer program Communication Month 1 Performance Gap Assessment Users of the EBP Month 1 Quick reference guides Characteristics of the clinical topic Distributed in month 4 Used months 4 through 15 Educational posters Characteristics of the clinical topic Distributed month 3 Used months 3 through 11 Staff education Communication Month 3 to 4 Outreach/site visits every 6 weeks for a total of 7 visits per site Communication Month 4 through month 15 Audit and feedback—6 reports Users of the EBP Month 5 through month 15 Monthly teleconferences total of 11 Users of the EBP Month 3 through 1455 M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 For those units that did not have 30 eligible nurses, all that met inclusion were included in the sample (n = 336). Selected RNs were invited to complete a questionnaire consisting of the Stage of Adoption Instru- ment, the Use of Research Findings in Practice Scale, and demographic questions. At baseline (one month prior to implementation), a cover let- ter, the questionnaire, and a preaddressed, stamped, envelope were mailed to each selected nurse. The cover letter explained the study, in- vited the nurse to participate, and requested that the questionnaire be returned within 2 weeks. Return of the questionnaire signified consent to participate. Reminders were mailed to nurses who had not returned the questionnaire within 3 weeks. Post-implementation questionnaires were sent to RNs returning baseline questionnaires, with 1 reminder sent if questionnaires were not returned within 3 weeks of thefirst mailing. The return rate of questionnaires was 47% at baseline (n = 157) and 42% at follow-up (n = 140). Returned questionnaires were en- tered into a database and reviewed for accuracy by a trained research assistant. Unit characteristics (e.g., bed capacity, average daily census, RN skill mix) were collected from nurse managers of the study unit. Patient characteristics (age, severity of illness) were acquired from the inpa- tient discharge abstractfiles (Balas et al., 2004; Titler et al., 2009; Vaughn et al., 2002). The All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), the extent of physiological decompensation or organ sys- tem loss of function, was used to define severity of illness (1 = minor; 2 = moderate; 3 = major; 4 = severe) (All Patient DRG Definitions Manual, 2011). 3.6. Statistical Analyses Data werefirst analyzed using descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, stan- dard deviation, counts, percent) and examined for values out of range. A significance level (alpha) ofb.05 was set a priori for all analyses. For aim 1, multivariate analysis of fall rates was conducted using a Poisson regression model treating counts of falls and fall injuries as a re- sponse variable and the period of observation (baseline and post- implementation), as well as unit-level characteristics as explanatory variables. The model used an off-set term representing log-person- days of observation (e.g., patient days) contributing to the fall counts. Covariates included patient age, severity of illness (Minor, Moderate, Major, Severe, scored as 1–4, respectively), RN skill mix, and RN HPPD. Falls and fall injuries were used as dependent variables. Given the small numbers for type of injury, descriptive statistics were used to il- lustrate the number in each category (minor, moderate, major, death), from pre- to post-implementation. To analyze data about risk-specific fall prevention interventions abstracted from medical records (aim 2), a set of appropriate interven- tions was identified for every type of fall risk. This resulted in the creation of risk-intervention pairs, where a specific risk profile corresponds to a specific fall prevention intervention to mitigate the fall risk. In addition, fall prevention interventions were analyzed by risk categories (e.g., mobility, elimination). For all patient days when a specific risk for falls was present, the presence of a fall preven- tion intervention targeted to a risk factor was treated as a correct response. Multivariate analyses of rates of correct interventions were conducted using a Poisson regression model using the count of correct interventions as the response variable and the period of observation (time before or after implementation), as well as unit- level characteristics (e.g., patient age, severity of illness, RN skill mix) as explanatory variables. To analyze nurses’self-reported level of adoption (aim 2), multivar- iate analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model with a random intercept modeling the effect of the unit. The model takes into account the fact that nurses from the same unit may have unmeasured charac- teristics that make their responses to the questionnaire within the unit more alike than across different units. Multivariate linear mixed model analyses were run separately for each response variable(e.g., ambulation, medication review, Use of Research Findings in Prac- tice) to evaluate the effect of time (before versus after implementation). Covariates included years of work experience as an RN, education, and age. Gender and race were excluded, because the overwhelming major- ity was white and female. 4. Results Demographics of the nurses and study units did not differ signifi- cantly between pre- and post-implementation. Patients on the study units were 65 years of age or older ( X= 65.6; SD = 2.8), and the major- ity (68%) were in the moderate or major severity of illness category. The average RN skill mix was 75% and the mean RN hours per patient days was 6.8 (SD = 0.81). The majority of nurses were white (N90%), female (N90%), between 30 and 40 years of age, and with an average of over eight years work experience as an RN. Fifty-five percent of the nurses had an education of a baccalaureate degree or higher. 4.1. Impact on Falls (Aim 1) As shown inTable 3, the decline in fall rates from pre- ( X= 3.69; SD = 1.43) to post- implementation ( X= 2.7; SD = 1.34) was not sta- tistically significant (−0.251 on the log scale; SE = 0.15), but demon- strated a trend toward significance (p= 0.09) with a 22% decline in fall rates. Severity of illness and RN skill mix were significant. For exam- ple, a 1% increase in RN skill mix was associated with a 2.3% decrease in fall rates. Since injuries from falls are a rare event, their analysis carries less power compared to the overall analysis of fall rates. The decline in fall injury rates was not significant (pre: X= .70 SD = .71; post: X= .59 SD = .5;p= 0.73). Age was positively associated with fall injury rates (p= 0.046). A one year increase in age was associated with a 12% increase in injury from a fall. Although fall injury rates did not de- cline significantly, there were reductions in the severity of fall injury for major and moderate categories from 26% pre-implementation to 11% post-implementation (see Fig. 2 supplemental). 4.2. Adoption of the Targeted Risk Factor Fall Prevention Bundle (Aim 2) Analysis of medical record data indicating adoption of fall preven- tion interventions targeting patient-specific fall risk factors showed sig- nificant improvements (pb0.001) from pre- to post-implementation indicating that fall prevention interventions were implemented to ad- dress patient-specific fall risk factors for all risk categories except med- ications (seeTable 4). For example, prior to implementation, there were 1285 patient days when patients had some mobility fall risk factor; fall prevention interventions to mitigate mobility risk were implemented 31 times per 100 patient days. In contrast, post-implementation, there were 1333 patient days when patients had some mobility fall risk factor Table 3 Multivariate analysis of fall and fall injury rates. Variables/category Estimates of coefficient in the model Std. ErrorpValue Fall rates Intercept−4.14619 1.49725 0.005 Time period (after)−0.251 0.15115 0.09 Patient age−0.01369 0.02187 0.53 Severity of illness 0.41152 0.20609 0.045 RN skill mix 2.29978 0.85774 0.007 RN HPPDs 0.01780 0.04811 0.711 Fall injury rates Intercept−15.0001 3.7964b0.001 Time period (after) 0.1118 0.3207 0.727 Patient age 0.1144 0.0574 0.046 Severity of illness 0.3323 0.5335 0.533 RN skill mix−0.3864 1.7102 0.821 RN HPPDs−0.0624 0.1100 0.571 56M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 with a fall prevention intervention implemented 88 times per 100 patient days. Specific types of fall prevention interventions implemented within each risk category as well as the sum of correct interventions by catego- ry are reported in Table 5 (supplemental materials). Specifictypesofin- terventions with counts greater than 5 were used in this analysis. For example, use of fall prevention interventions targeted to mobility risk increased for physical therapy, use of assistive equipment, and periodic rounding, as well as the overall sum of fall prevention interventions in the mobility risk category. Overall, the rate of correct interventions across risk categories increased by .27 per 100 patient days (SE = 0.4, pb0.001) (see Table 5 supplemental). Nurses’mean adoption scores increased significantly for:ambulation from 2.03 (1.2) pre-implementation to 2.54 (1.0) post-implementation (SE = .1405;p= 0.002);post-fall huddlesfrom 2.81 (1.2) pre- implementation to 3.1 (1.0) post-implementation (SE = 0.1375;p= 0.03); andUse of Research Findings in Practicescores from 6.4 (2.9) pre-implementation to 7.4 (2.3) post-implementation (SE = .3345; p= 0.04). No covariates were significant, and adoption scores did not change significantly for medication review and delirium screening. 5. Discussion The Translating Research Into Practice intervention used in this study was effective in promoting use of fall prevention interventions that target patient-specific fall risk factors. Increased use included fall prevention interventions for history of previous falls, mobility, elimina- tion, cognition/mental status, and risk for injury from a fall. Targeted risk factor fall prevention interventions were designed to mitigate patient-specific risks factors for falls, which goes beyond general fall prevention interventions typically implemented for those designated at risk (Coussement et al., 2008; Hempel et al., 2013; Oliver, 2008a). Al- though investigators have demonstrated the effectiveness of translation interventions to improve use of evidence-based practices for a variety of other clinical topics (Birken et al., 2012; Dobbins et al., 2009a, 2009b; Dogherty et al., 2012; Farmer et al., 2008; Flodgren et al., 2011; Forsetlund et al., 2009; Gifford et al., 2007, 2011; Ivers et al., 2012; Jordan et al., 2009; Katz et al., 2009; Ploeg et al., 2010; Stetler et al., 2009), few studies have demonstrated improved uptake and use of fall prevention interventions that target patient-specific fall risk factors through a translation research approach (Dykes et al., 2010). This study demonstrated a 22% reduction in fall rates from pre- to post-implementation with changes in types of injuries from major and moderate to minor injuries. Although the reduction in fall rates and change in types of fall injuries were not statistically significant, these changes are clinically meaningful (Coussement et al., 2008; Cumming et al., 2008; Dykes et al., 2010; Koh et al., 2009). Thesefindings support those of Dykes and colleagues (Dykes et al., 2010) that demonstrated the effectiveness of targeted interventions for reducing falls.Fall rates were associated with severity of illness and patient age. Thesefindings are congruent with those of other investigators that sug- gest that falls and injuries from falls are influenced by patient age as well as the number and severity of other conditions (Hanlon et al., 2002; Lee, Cigolle, & Blaum, 2009 ). Our study did not demonstrate statistically significant improvements in use of some fall prevention interventions, particularly those targeted to medications such as pharmacy review of medications, avoiding use of medications that increase fall risk (e.g., benzodiazepines), and toileting prior to administration of analgesics. Based upon nurses’self- report and medical record data,findings did not demonstrate increased use of specific fall prevention interventions related to mental status risk such as physician consultation for mental status changes, and sched- uled rounding. The explanations for failing to see an increased use of these interventions may be due to complexity and the interdisciplinary nature of these fall prevention interventions (Quigley & White, 2013). Medication review requires multidisciplinary practices (e.g., pharmacy and physicians) and implementation by nurses alone may be difficult. Even though our study included pharmacy representatives to facilitate communication, it might not have been enough to support medication review. Although cognitive status is a fall risk factor that has been em- phasized (Inouye et al., 1999), implementing interventions to screen and address cognitive status of hospitalized patients is complex and re- mains a challenge noted by others (Bradley et al., 2006; Carroll, Dykes, & Hurley, 2012). Ambulation is an intervention that is recommended to prevent falls related to mobility limitations (Boltz et al., 2014; Oliver et al., 2004; Tinetti & Kumar, 2010). Nurses’self-reported use of ambulation in- creased from“persuaded”to“used sometimes”stage of adoption. Data from medical records also demonstrated an improvement in use of am- bulation, although this change was not statistically significant (p= 0.08). Thesefindings are similar to those of other investigators who have demonstrated that ambulation is one of several missed nursing care interventions (Kalisch, 2006; Kalisch, Landstrom, & Hinshaw, 2009). Boltz and colleagues (Boltz et al., 2014) demonstrated several factors that patients report as limiting mobility and physical activity during hospitalization, including elevated bed height, lack of assistive devices, and lack of available staff. Hospital leaders and staff must prior- itize and value ambulation and physical activity interventions to pre- vent falls and functional decline. 6. Limitations The studyfindings are not generalizable to other types of healthcare settings, such as ambulatory and long-term care agencies. Given the pre–post design of the study, it is difficult to rule out effects from other factors in the environment occurring simultaneously with this study. Lastly, although medical records are used by regulatory agencies Table 4 Fall prevention interventions by risk categories. Before implementation (n = 1638 patient days)CI After implementation (n = 1606 patient days)CIpValue Risk-specific interventions ⱡ Patient days + Rate per 100 patient days ¥ Patient days Rate per 100 patient days History of previous fall 133 0.6 0–1.8 209.7 82 77–87b0.001 Mobility 1285 31 29–33 1333 88 87–90b0.001 Toileting/elimination 853.7 50 47–53 917.7 66 63–69b0.001 Cognition/mental status 769 2.3 1.3–3.2 531 77 74–80b0.001 Medication 1525 0.11 0–0.25 1562 0.1 0–0.25 0.981 Risk for injury 1142 66 64–69 1285 88 86–89b0.001 CI—confidence interval. N = 1638 total patient days before intervention; N = 1606 total patient days after intervention. +Patient days are the number of days of labeled risk (denominator).¥Number of times intervention(s) was received per 100 patient days (example: received a mobility intervention 88 times per 100 patient days).ⱡReceived fall prevention interventions targeted to patient-specific risk (e.g., based on risk profile).57 M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 to measure care delivery, some of the fall prevention interventions may have been implemented, but not documented. 7. Conclusions The Translating Research Into Practice intervention improved use of fall prevention interventions targeted to patient-specific fall risk factors. The study also demonstrated improvement in reduction of fall rates and types of fall injuries. To make significant gains in reducing falls in hospi- tals, clinicians must do more than arriving at a fall risk score with subse- quent implementation of general fall reduction interventions; they need to know each patient’s risk factors for falls and implement fall pre- vention interventions to mitigate those risks. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online athttp://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2015.12.004. References Agostini, J. V., Concato, J., & Inouye, S. K. (2008).Improving sedative-hypnotic prescribing in older hospitalized patients: provider-perceived benefits and barriers of a computer-based reminder.Journal of General Internal Medicine,23(Suppl. 1), 32–36. Agostini, J. V., Zhang, Y., & Inouye, S. K. (2007).Use of a computer-based reminder to im- prove sedative-hypnotic prescribing in older hospitalized patients.Journal of American Geriatrics Society,55(1), 43–48. All Patient DRG Definitions Manual (2011).Version 29.0.Available from: 3 M Health In- formation Systems (http://www.3m.com/us/healthcare/his/). National voluntary consensus standards for nursing-sensitive care: an initial performance measure set: a consensus report.(2004).National Quality Forum. Summary of the Updated American Geriatrics Society/British Geriatrics Society clinical practice guideline for prevention of falls in older persons.Journal of the American Ge- riatrics Society.(pp.148–157)(2011).American Geriatrics Society & British Geriatrics, Society; Panel on Prevention of Falls in Older Persons. Balas, E. A., et al. (2004).Computerized knowledge management in diabetes care.Medical Care,42(6), 610–621. Birken, S. A., Lee, S. Y., & Weiner, B. J. (2012).Uncovering middle managers’role in healthcare innovation implementation.Implementation Science,7,28. Boltz, M., et al. (2014).Activity restriction vs. self-direction: hospitalised older adults’re- sponse to fear of falling.International Journal of Older People Nursing,9(1), 44–53. Bradley, E. H., et al. (2004).Translating research into clinical practice: making change happen.Journal of American Geriatrics Society,52(11), 1875–1882. Bradley, E. H., et al. (2006).Patterns of diffusion of evidence-based clinical programmes: a case study of the Hospital Elder Life Program.Quality & Safety in Health Care,15(5), 334–338. Caldevilla, M. N., et al. (2013).Evaluation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model to Portuguese.Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences,27(2), 468–474. Cameron, I. D., et al. (2012).Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care fa- cilities and hospitals.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,12, CD005465. Carroll, D. L., Dykes, P. C., & Hurley, A. C. (2012).An electronic fall prevention toolkit: ef- fect on documentation quality.Nursing Research,61(4), 309–313. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: CMS.gov. (2014). Available from:http://www. cms.hhs.gov/ Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995).What is participatory research?Social Science and Medicine,41(12), 1667–1676. Coussement, J., et al. (2008).Interventions for preventing falls in acute‐and chronic‐care hospitals: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,56(1), 29–36. Cumming, R. G. (2002).Intervention strategies and risk-factor modification for falls pre- vention. A review of recent intervention studies.Clinics in Geriatric Medicine,18(2), 175–189. Cumming, R. G., et al. (2008).Cluster randomised trial of a targeted multifactorial inter- vention to prevent falls among older people in hospital.BMJ,336(7647), 758–760. Dobbins, M., et al. (2009a).A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science,4,23. Dobbins, M., et al. (2009b).A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowl- edge translation and exchange strategies.Implementation Science,4,61. Dogherty, E. J., et al. (2012).Following a natural experiment of guideline adaptation and early implementation: a mixed-methods study of facilitation.Implementation Science, 7,9. Dougherty, D., & Conway, P. H. (2008).The“3T’s”road map to transform US health care: the“how”of high-quality care.JAMA,299(19), 2319– 2321. Dykes, P. C., et al. (2010).Fall prevention in acute care hospitals: a randomized trial.JAMA, 304(17), 1912–1918. Farmer, A. P., et al. (2008).Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,3,CD004398.Feldman, P. H., & McDonald, M. V. (2004).Conducting translation research in the home care setting: lessons from a just-in-time reminder study.Worldviews on Evidence- Based Nursing,1(1), 49–59. Feldman, P. H., et al. (2005).Just-in-time evidence-based e-mail“reminders”in home health care: impact on patient outcomes.Health Services Research,40(3), 865–885. Fischer, I. D., et al. (2005).Patterns and predictors of inpatient falls and fall-related inju- ries in a large academic hospital.Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology,26(10), 822–827. Flodgren, G., et al. (2011).Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,8,CD000125. Forsetlund, L., et al. (2009).Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,2, CD003030. Gifford, W., et al. (2007).Managerial leadership for nurses’use of research evidence: an integrative review of the literature.Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing,4(3), 126–145. Gifford, W., et al. (2011).Developing team leadership to facilitate guideline utilization: planning and evaluating a 3-month intervention strategy.Journal of Nursing Management,19(1), 121–132. Gold, M., & Taylor, E. F. (2007).Moving research into practice: lessons from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’sIDSRNprogram.Implementation Science,2,9. Green, L., Daniel, M., & Novick, L. (2001).Partnerships and coalitions for community- based research.Public Health Reports,116 (Suppl. 1), 20–31. Greenhalgh, T., et al. (2005).Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta- narrative approach to systematic review.Social Science and Medicine,61(2), 417–430. Grimshaw, J., et al. (2006).Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998.Journal of General Internal Medicine,21(Suppl. 2), S14–S20. Hanlon, J. T., et al. (2002).Falls in African American and white community-dwelling el- derly residents.Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sci- ences,57(7), M473–M478. Healey, F., et al. (2004).Using targeted risk factor reduction to prevent falls in older in- patients: a randomised controlled trial.Age and Ageing,33(4), 390–395. Hempel, S., et al. (2013).Hospital fall prevention: a systematic review of implementation, components, adherence, and effectiveness.Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 61(4), 483–494. Higaonna, M. (2015).The predictive validity of a modified Japanese Nursing Association fall risk assessment tool: a retrospective cohort study.International Journal of Nursing Studies,52(9), 1484–1494. Hook, M. L., & Winchel, S. (2006).Fall-related injuries in acute care: reducing the risk of harm.Medsurg Nursing,15(6), 370–377. Hysong, S. J., Best, R. G., & Pugh, J. A. (2006).Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: making feedback actionable.Implementation Science,1,9. Inouye, S. K., Brown, C. J., & Tinetti, M. E. (2009).Medicare nonpayment, hospital falls, andunintendedconsequences.New England Journal of Medicine,360(23), 2390–2393. Inouye,S.K.,etal.(1999).A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospi- talized older patients.New England Journal of Medicine,340(9), 669–676. Inouye, S. K., et al. (2000).The Hospital Elder Life Program: a model of care to prevent cognitive and functional decline in older hospitalized patients. Hospital Elder Life Pro- gram. Journal of American Geriatrics Society,48(12), 1697–1706. Ivers, N., et al. (2012).Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,6,CD000259. Jordan, M. E., et al. (2009).The role of conversation in health care interventions: enabling sensemaking and learning.Implementation Science,4,15. Kalisch, B. J. (2006).Missed nursing care: a qualitative study.Journal of Nursing Care Quality,21(4), 306–313. Kalisch, B. J., Landstrom, G. L., & Hinshaw, A. S. (2009).Missed nursing care: a concept analysis.Journal of Advanced Nursing,65(7), 1509–1517. Katz, D., et al. (2009).A before-after implementation trial of smoking cessation guidelines in hospitalized veterans.Implementation Science,4,58. Koh, S. L., et al. (2009).Impact of a fall prevention programme in acute hospital settings in Singapore.Singapore Medical Journal,50(4), 425–432. Lee, P. G., Cigolle, C., & Blaum, C. (2009).The co-occurrence of chronic diseases and geri- atric syndromes: the health and retirement study.Journal of American Geriatrics Soci- ety,57(3), 511–516. Markey, D. W., & Brown, R. J. (2002).An interdisciplinary approach to addressing patient activity and mobility in the medical-surgical patient.Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 16(4), 1–12. McCarter-Bayer, A., Bayer, F., & Hall, K. (2005).Preventing falls in acute care: an innova- tive approach.Journal of Gerontological Nursing,31(3), 25–33. Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988).Organizational assimilation of innovations: a multilevel contextual analysis.Academy of Management Journal,31(4), 897–923. Murtaugh, C. M., et al. (2005).Just-in-time evidence-based e-mail“reminders”in home health care: impact on nurse practices.Health Services Research,40 (3), 849–864. Oliver, D. (2008a).Falls risk-prediction tools for hospital inpatients. Time to put them to bed?Age and Ageing,37(3), 248–250. Oliver, D. (2008b).Evidence for fall prevention in hospitals.Journal of the American Geri- atrics Society,56(9), 1774–1775. Oliver, D., Healey, F., & Haines, T. P. (2010).Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals.Clinics in Geriatric Medicine,26(4), 645–692. Oliver, D., et al. (2004).Risk factors and risk assessment tools for falls in hospital in- patients: a systematic review.Age and Ageing,33(2), 122–130. Oliver, D., et al. (2007).Strategies to prevent falls and fractures in hospitals and care homes and effect of cognitive impairment: systematic review and meta-analyses. BMJ,334(7584), 82. 58M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59 Medication assessment: one determinant of falls risk. P.P.S. Advisory (Ed.). (2008). Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority. Ploeg, J., et al. (2010).The role of nursing best practice champions in diffusing practice guidelines: a mixed methods study.Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing,7(4), 238–251. Quigley, P. A., & White, S. V. (2013).Hospital-based fall program measurement and im- provement in high reliability organizations.Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18(2), 5. Quigley, P. A., et al. (2009).Reducing serious injury from falls in two veterans’hospital medical-surgical units.Journal of Nursing Care Quality,24(1), 33–41. Rogers,E.M.(2010).Diffusion of innovations.Simon and Schuster. Ross, A. G., & Morris, P. E. (2010).Safety and barriers to care.Critical Care Nurse,30(2), S11–S13. Rubenstein, L. Z. (2006).Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention.Age and Ageing,35(Suppl. 2), ii37–ii41. Rutledge, D. N., & Donaldson, N. E. (1995).Building organizational capacity to engage in research utilization.Journal of Nursing Administration,25(10), 12–16. Rutledge, D. N., et al. (1996).Use of research-based practices by oncology staff nurses. Oncology Nursing Forum,23(8), 1235–1244. Shever, L. L., et al. (2011).Fall prevention practices in adult medical-surgical nursing units described by nurse managers.Western Journal of Nursing Research,33(3), 385–397. Shmueli, T., et al. (2014).Reporting adverse events at geriatric facilities: categorization by type of adverse event and function of reporting personnel.International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,27(2), 91–98. SPSS (1999).SPSS Base 10.0 for Windows User’sGuide.Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Stetler, C. B., et al. (2009).Institutionalizing evidence-based practice: an organizational case study using a model of strategic change.Implementation Science,4,78. Tinetti, M. E. (2003).Preventing falls in elderly persons. New England Journal of Medicine, 348(1), 42–49. Tinetti, M. E., & Kumar, C. (2010).The patient who falls:“it’s always a trade-off”.JAMA, 303(3), 258–266. Titler, M. G. (2010).Translation science and context.Research and Theory for Nursing Practice,24(1), 35–55. Titler, M. G., & Everett, L. Q. (2001).Translating research into practice. Considerations for critical care investigators.Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North America,13(4), 587–604. Titler, M. G., et al. (2009).Translating research into practice intervention improves man- agement of acute pain in older hip fracture patients.Health Services Research,44(1), 264–287. Titler, M. G., et al. (2011).Factors associated with falls during hospitalization in an older adult population.Research and Theory for Nursing Practice,25(2), 127–148. Tucker, D., Molsberger, S. C., & Clark, A. (2004).Walking for wellness: a collaborative pro- gram to maintain mobility in hospitalized older adults.Geriatric Nursing,25(4), 242–245. Tzeng, H. M. (2011).A feasibility study of providing folding commode chairs in patient bathrooms to reduce toileting-related falls in an adult acute medical-surgical unit. Journal of Nursing Care Quality,26(1), 61–68. Vaughn, T. E., et al. (2002).Organizational predictors of adherence to ambulatory care screening guidelines.Medical Care,40(12), 1172–1185. Woodard, J. L. (2009).Effects of rounding on patient satisfaction and patient safety on a medical-surgical unit.Clinical nurse specialist,23(4), 200–206.59 M.G. Titler et al. / Applied Nursing Research 31 (2016) 52–59
Review your problem or issue (Pressure Ulcer Prevention) and the study materials (Attached) to formulate a PICOT question for your capstone project change proposal. A PICOT question starts with a desi
S P E C I A L F E A T U R E rBy D e n is e M . B o w e n , R D H , M S , a n d J a n e L. F o rre s t, R D H , EdD Translating Research fo r Evidence-Based Practice lthough most dental hygienists received education regarding evi­ dence-based decision making while in school, many report their preparation was less than adequate for them to confidently search the literature for good quality evidence and to appraise it for its validity and relevance.1 The first phase involves understanding the evi­ dence-based decision making (EBDM) process, including asking a good clinical question, and efficiently searching databases to find credibleevidence to answer that question.2,3 An online continuing education course regarding those steps is available for dental hygienists wanting a review.4 The second phase involves critical­ ly appraising the evidence to determine its credibility and assessing the practicality o f the information. The final phase involves applying the evidence to one’s clinical decision and pa­ tient care. The focus o f this article is on Phase 2, evaluating research so you can translate it into your practice. Figure 1. Hierarchy of Research Designs and Levels of Scientific Evidence s e c o n d a r y p r e a p p r a t s e d o r f i l t e r e d s t u d i e s p r i m a r y , e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s p r o s p e c t i v e , t e s t s t r e a t m e n t p r i m a r y , n o n – e x p e r i m e n t a l / o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s p r o s p e c tiv e : h a v e b e e n e x p o s e d t o a risk; o b s e r v e f o r c p r i m a r y , n o n – e x p e r i m e n t a l / o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s r e t r o s p e c t i v e : s u b j e c t s h a v e o u t c o m e o f I n t e r e s t ; I n o d e s ig n n a r r a t i v e r e v ie w s , e x p e r t o p i n i o n s , e d i t o r i a l s d o e s n o t in v o lv e h u m a n s Reprinted fr o m Forrest JL, M ille r SA. EBDM in A c tio n : D eveloping com p e te n ce in EB practice, © 2 0 1 6 . Used by perm ission o f th e author. 10 J a n u a ry 2017 SPECIALFC IL TPAUE IRE rBLyECC LD eBAIAyniis M..BnACAFo wECEnByR First, consider where the article is published. For scientific evidence, the source needs to be peer-reviewed (or “refereed”). Peer-reviewed means the m anuscripts have been reviewed by experts who have evaluated the study design and th e strength o f the conclu­ sions.5 Typically, there are at least two reviewers. I f the study inform ation is reported clearly and accurately, the m anuscript can be accepted w ith o u t additional work. W h en the inform a­ tion is incom plete o r confusing, the reviewers’ critiques are sent to the au­ thors for consideration and im plem en­ tation. The m anuscript is revised to address the issues raised, to strengthen and improve its quality before publi­ cation. After revision, the m anuscript may be accepted w ith o u t further review, o r sent back to the reviewers for an o th er review. In this case, there is no guarantee that the m anuscript will be accepted. W hen a m anuscript is extensively flawed o r no t appropriate for a particular publication, it will be rejected upon initial review. W hen evaluating research articles, determine if the source is peer-reviewed, o r if it is a practice-based publication th a t publishes expert opinions, product overviews and continuing education. Both types o f publications have value to dental hygiene practitioners, but the most credible scientific information is generally found in peer-reviewed journals. W hile considering the type o f publication, also review the references cited to see if they represent higher levels o f evidence (research studies) or if they represent personal interviews, expert or layman opinions, commercial websites, magazine articles and online materials from less credible popular sources. H igh-quality scientific articles cite other high-quality evidence like clinical practice guidelines; systematic reviews; meta-analysis; randomized con­ trolled trials (RCTs); controlled clinical trials; o r governmental reports, laws and regulations.Forrest and Miller have succinct­ ly outlined questions from evi­ dence-based sources th a t health care providers can use to evaluate, or crit­ ically appraise, scientific literature.6′ 8 These questions provide the basis for the critical evaluation process discussed in this article. A prelim inary assess­ m en t helps to determ ine w hat the article actually is abo u t.7 For example, • W h y was the study conducted, and w hat question did the a u th o r examine? Is there a clear statem ent o f purpose, a specific P IC O question, or a list o f precise objectives stated at the beginning o f the article? A P IC O question identifies the patient problem or population (P), intervention (I), comparison (C) and outcome(s) ( O ) . • W h a t type o f research was conducted? W here does this type o f research fall on the Hierarchy o f Research Designs and Levels o f Evidence (Figure 1)? – In general, secondary research is the highest level o f research because it follows a distinct, systematic process to synthesize prim ary research studies that address the same question. Secondary research includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses, representing a body o f knowledge versus an individual study (Figure 2). It provides the basis for clinical practice guidelines (CPG ) (Box 1). • Was the appropriate research design used based on the purpose o f the study? For example, an R C T w ith experimental and control groups is the m ost appropriate design for answering questions related to a therapy or preventive procedure/technique, whereas a controlled clinical trial would be used for answering questions related to a diagnostic test/ in stru m en t as there would be no control group. Both typesA SURVEY OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS’ PREFERENCES, ATTITUDES 01* PRACTICES W O U LD NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ABO U T THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CLINICAL PROTOCOLS. o f research use experimental research designs.6 A survey o f dental hygienists’ preferences, attitudes or practices would no t answer questions ab o u t the effectiveness o f clinical protocols or be able to assess the outcomes o f an intervention o n a patient or comm unity. Assuming this initial screening using the prelim inary questions indicates good quality thus far, th e process continues by asking three specific questions.8 1. Is the study valid? 2. W h a t are the results? 3. D o the results apply to my patient? 1. Is the study valid? In o th er words, was the question or objective clearly focused, and did the investigators use the correct study design to answer the question? I f the answer is no, it will be difficult to have confidence in the findings, so why bother continuing to read the study? To begin assessing validity, identify w hether the authors directly address the stated purpose a n d /o r the research questions or hypothesis. Then consider w hether rigorous m ethods were used. M ethods to assure objectivity and rig­ or, depending on the design, include following strict pre-established criteria, selecting and recruiting subjects A c c e s s 11 S PEC I A E LPFTU PRrBAyPRD TALenrET ECFE insinTnRE ECn FEEiPLAEnT EI Ln TEA y M PnyU iFRyI. Bo FTTPDRPRD sFiEPrPsFRET Ii EinFE. nRET EI DiIAsTU LBPRyPRD sFiEPrPsFRET F R y wI i n,F.PRniT EI DiIAs Ii PREniHnREPIR FTTPDR.nREU PRrBAyPRD F rIREiIB Ii rI.sFiPTIR DiIAs Ii ATPRD F TEFRyFiy inaninRrnU FR y ATPRD inTnFirC PRTEiA. nRET S PEC yIrA. nREny nTEFLBPTCny HFBPyPEo FRy inBPFLPBPEo dHniM TAT ECn FAECIiTJ TP.sBo rinFEPRD IRn ECno EC I A D C E S IABy FTTnTT ECn ynTPiny IAErI.nTtg vCn TEAyo FBTI TCIABy Ln rIRyArEny S PEC F BFiDn nRIADC TF.sBn EI EnTE ECn TEFEny CosIECnTPT Ii FRTSni ECn inTnFirC lAnTEPIRTg hnBBuynTPDRny T.FBB TEAyPnT Fin FrrnsEFLBnm ECn inTABET eATE Rnny EI Ln PREnisinEny rFinaABBog h CPBn T.FBB TEAyPnT rFR siIHPyn inTABET lAPr1BoU ECno yI RI E RIi. FBBo oPnBy ynaPRPEPHn inTABETg vCATU ECn FAECIiT TCIABy R I E .F1n TEiIRD rIRrBATPIRT FLIAE F iPT1 aFrEIi Ii EiPFB PREniHnREPIRU inDFiyBnTT I a EC n inTABETg 0RTEnFyU T.FBBTEAyPnT TCIABy Ln ATny EI ynTPDR BFiDni TEAyPnT Ii rIRaPi. sinBP. PRFio inTABETg 0 a TEAyoJT FP. PT EI siIHPyn HFBPy FRy inBPFLBn nHPynRrn IR F iPT1 aFrEIi Ii RnS PREniHnREPIRU ECn TEAyo TCIABy Ln BFiDn nRIADC EI yI TIg )nTT iPDIiIAT . nECIyT RnDFEPHnBo P. sFrE EC n HFBPyPEo I a F TEAyoJT inTABETg *Ii n,F.sBnU TEAyoPRD IiFB CoDPnRn S PEC IRn DiIAs I a ynREFB CoDPnRn TEAynRET EI ynEni. PRn naanrEPHnRnTT I a F sinHnREPHn EnrCRPlAn I i FssiIFrC CFT FBSFoT Tnn.ny IyyU FT PE S IABy Ln FTTA.ny ECno . PDCE HFBAn IiFB CoDPnRn Ii IiFB CnFBEC yPaaninREBo ECFR ECn FHniM FDn sFEPnREg + nFTAiPRD sBFlAnU DPRDPHFB LBnnyPRD FRy PRaBF. . FEPIR L A E RI E siILPRD yns EC FRy rBPRPrFB FEEFrC. nRE BnHnB d,-)t S IABy RI E Ln HFBPy PR F TEAyo I a F sniPIyIREPEPT PREniHnREPIR LA E S IABy Ln HFBPy IAErI. nT EI FTTnTT PR F TEAyo I a DPRDPHPEPTg 0R nyArFEPIRFB inTnFirCU ynEni. PRPRD Pa FR nyArFEPIRFB siIDiF. P. siIHny 1RISBnyDn aiI. sinEnTE EI sITEEnTE S PEC RI rI.sFiPTIRIi rIREiIB DiIAs .Fo R I E Ln HFBPy LnrFATn 1RISBnyDn S IABy Ln n,snrEny EI PRrinFTn aIBBISPRD nyArFEPIRg 2. W hat are the results? A fter d e term in in g if the study is valid, review the results. Are the findings statistically a n d /o r clinically significant? C linical significance can be in te rp re te d as im p o rta n c e .11 Sta­ tistical significance estim ates the like­ lihood or p robability th a t the results truly are related to the variable being stu d ied versus due to chance. Some results can be statistically significant w ith o u t being clinically significant. For example, w hen com p arin g two treatm ents for p erio d o n titis, a statis­ tical difference in favor o f treatm en t X m ig h t be found. I f treatm en t X resulted in a gain o f CAL o f 0.25 mm and tre a tm e n t Y resulted in a CAL P r im a r y vs. S e c o n d a r y R esearch Primary Research Individual Research Studies A ll a n s w e r in g t h e s a m e q u e s t i o nSecondary Research Reviews o f A lread y C onducted Research 1 t —————————– —————————– 1 Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis S t a t is t ic a l S y n t h e s i z e d . A n a l y s i s o f R e s u l t s S y n t h e s i z e d R e s u lt s B o d y o f E v i d e n c e TJ Reprinted fr o m Forrest JL, M ille r SA. EBDM in A c tio n : D eveloping co m p e te n ce in EB practice, © 2 0 1 6 . Used by permission o f t h e author. 12 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 SPECI AL FTIURCrByB PDe nyPDePieB sM i .oPCwPyrD, HIBIPiUT aryIiPywiI R esource W e b s ite Type o f T o o l(s ) P rovid ed Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)h ttp ://w w w .c a s p – u k.n e t/ca sp-tools- checklistsCritical appraisal checklists for: 1. system atic reviews 2. randomized controlled trial 3. diagnostic 4. economic evaluation 5. q u a litative 6. case control 7. cohort study 8. clinical prediction rules Consolidated S tan­ dards o f Reporting Trials (CONSORT)h ttp ://w w w .c o n – s o rt-s ta te m e n t.o rg /S tatem ent regarding m inim um recom mendations fo r RCTs and a checklist and flow diagram fo r c r it i­ cal appraisal o f RCTs Preferred Reporting Ite m s fo r System atic Reviews and Me­ ta-Analyses (PRISMA)h ttp ^ / p r i s ­ m a -s ta te m e n t.o rg / K •• – I #S tatem ent regarding m inim um recom mendations fo r system atic reviews and m eta-analyses and a checklist and flow diagram fo r c r it­ ical appraisal of system atic reviews and m eta-analyses Standards fo r Re­ porting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD)h ttp ://w w w .e q u a – to r-n e tw o rk .o rg / w p -c o n te n t/u p – lo a d s /2 0 1 5 /0 3 / STARD-2015-check- lis t.p d fA checklist fo r evaluating studies of diagnostic tests and devices S trengthening the reporting of observa­ tional studies in epi­ dem iology (STROBE)h t t p : / / w w w . stro b e-statem ent. o rg /? id = a v a il- able-checklistsChecklists (combined and in d ivid u ­ al) fo r evaluating 1. Cohort studies 2. Case study 3. Cross-sectional studies 4. Conference abstracts Wiley Critical apprais­ al checklistsh ttp ://o n lin e lib ra ry. w ile y.co m /d o i/ 10.100 2/ 9780470987407. a p p 2 /p d fChecklists fo r various study designs 1. Experimental (random ized and non-randomized controlled tria l) designs. 2. Q uasi-experim ental ( in te r ru p t­ ed tim e series) designs 3. A ttrib u tio n studies 4. Questionnaire surveys 5. Q ualitative studies 6. M ixed-m ethodology case stu d ­ ies 7. Real world and action research Access 13 S PE CI A LFT FU R L r BR U yFU D e n Fi D LFT D s MAre s. o S RsDi P T y w D w F, w D s y LD H D Ls P a D H Fi D T U D y P d B P H Fi D , n Fi FT , d B FT U Fd LD s a P B s d D U FaFU s F y n R J y FP T s P B U P T i FyFP T s I o t E R g d LD s B D LR yD i y P i D T yR L w v , FD T D d B R U yFU D FT U Ln i D d Fy l R T i a Fs s n B D s D R LR T ys h R T i T P T l s n B , FU R L y B D R y g D T y P a U w B P T FU d D B F P i P T y F y F s I Cu gain o f 0.10 m m , th e dental hygienist has to determ ine w hether th e differ­ ence in gain in CAL between the two approaches (0.15 mm ) is clinically significant. Is it im p o rta n t enough to change protocols, purchase a device or revise p atien t self-care practices? Also, consider how m any additional visits were required to o b tain the 0.15 m m gain and at w h at cost? Remember, statistical significance does n o t d eter­ m ine clinical significance. Conversely, findings can be clinically significant w ith o u t being statistically significant, especially w hen they make a tangible difference to th e p a tie n t.12 3. “W ill the results help in caring fo r my patients?” O n ce the study’s validity is estab­ lished, and the results are determ ined, consider this final question in the critical appraisal process.6 Com pare your patient(s) or com m unities o f in ­ terest to those studied in terms o f age, education or socioeconomic level, and disease parameters and assess w hether they are similar o r different. In other words, w ould they have qualified to be in the study? I f they are different, the results w ould no t apply. C onsider how your experiences and your p atien t’s preferences will influence the decisions ab o u t incorporating these results into th a t patient’s care. Also, be careful how you apply results o f population-based research to an individual patient. At times, research examines the char­ acteristics o f a group o f patients or a selected com m unity to estimate population-based risks. Results from these studies can indicate incidence o f a given disease or risk factors. Findings can be used to generate hypotheses for studies to assess individual’s risks. However, conclusions from such p o p u ­ lation-based research cannot be applied to individual patients.5After you have evaluated the strength o f the evidence and d eter­ m ined its relevance, decide w hether it should be incorporated into your treatm ent plan. I f so, take action by actually planning its im plem entation d uring patient care when similar circumstances arise. Share th e findings with others in your practice setting who m ight have patients w ith similar conditions. This EB D M process not only is likely to improve treatm ent outcomes, b u t also has the potential to make your w ork more interesting. H D en ise B ow en, R D H , M S , professor em eritus in d e n ta l hygiene a t I d a ­ ho S ta te University, has served as a co n su lta n t to d e n ta l industry, as w ell as governm ent, universities a n d p r iv a te organizations. S h e has p re se n ted a t m eetings o f the A D H A , C a n a d ia n D e n ta l H ygienists’ Association, A m e r ­ ican A ssociation o f D e n ta l Schools, A m e rica n P u b lic H e a lth Association, N o r th A m e r ic a n Conference on D e n ta l H ygiene Research, a n d In te r n a tio n a l S ym posium s on D e n ta l H ygiene in C a n ­ ada, Russia, C h in a a n d Costa Rica. Shehas c o n tr ib u te d to several d e n ta l hygiene texts a n d is w id ely k n o w n through her n um erous p u b lis h e d articles in d e n ta l hygiene a n d h er d y n a m ic c o n tin u in g education program s related to nonsurgi- c a lp e r io d o n ta l therapy, p re v e n tiv e oral care, research a n d education. Jane L. Forrest, R D H , E d D is professor o f C lin ica l D entistry; section chair, Behavioral Science, Ostrow School o f Dentistry, University o f Southern Cali­ fo r n ia ; a n d director, N a tio n a l Center f o r D e n ta l H ygiene Research & Practice. She is a n internationally recognized aitthor a n d presenter on evidence-based decision m a k in g (E B D M ). Projects have in clu d ed p re p a rin g the A D H A w h ite p a p e r on E B D M in d e n ta l hygiene, serving on the p la n n in g com m ittee a n d p a rticip a tin g in the A m erica n D e n ta l Association’s C ham pions Conference on E BD . H er p u b lic a tio n s include book chapters on E B D M f o r C lin ica l Periodontology a n d f o r D e n ta l Hygiene: Theory a n d Practice. She is the lead co-author o f tw o textbooks, the m ost recent being Evidence-Based Decision M a k in g : D evel­ oping Competence in E B Practice. References 1. O sb o rn e S D , H enle y G L , Josey-Baker YI, Freyer C E . Inform ation-seeking practices o f dental hygienists. J D e n t Educ. 201 4 ; 78(12): 1615-22. 2. Forrest JL, M iller SA. Translating evidence based decision m a king into practice: E B D M concepts an d finding the evidence. J Evid Base D e n t Pract. 2009; 9(2): 59-72. 3. M iller SA, F orrest JL. Translating evidence based decision m aking into practice: appraising a n d applying the evidence. J Evid Base D en t Pract. 200 9 ; 9(4): 164-82. 4. Forresr JL. Evidence-based decision making: intro d u ctio n an d fo rm ulating good clinical questions. Available at: w ww .dentalcare.com /en- us/professional-education/ce-courses/ce311 5. H ollister C . Reading dental literature: ju st rhe basics. Nashville Area D ental S upport C e n te r U nited S outh a n d Eastern Tribes. Inc. n.d. Available at: www.nappr.org/files/dental- resource-gu ide/C l i n ical% 20Resources/ Reading% 20D ental% 20L.iterature-Basics.pdl. Accessed O c to b e r 2 4 ,2 0 1 6 . 6. F orrest JL , Miller SA. E B D M in action:developing com petence in eb practice. ebdLibrary: C olbe rt, Wash., 2016. 7. G reenhalgh T. G e ttin g your bearings (deciding w h at the paper is ab o u t). BMJ 1997; 315(7 1 0 2 ): 243-6. 8. Critical Appraisal Skills Program m e (GASP). A ppraising th e evidence. Available at: www. casp-uk.net. Accessed O c to b e r 30, 2016. 9. W rig h t JT, Crall JJ, F ontana M , e t al. Evidence-based clinical practice guid eline for the use o f pit-and-fissure sealants. J A m D en t Assoc. 2016; 147(8): 6 7 2 – 8 2 . e l 2. 10. Smiley C J, Tracy SL, Evidence-based clinical practice guid eline on the nonsurgical tre atm en t o f chronic p eriodontitis by means o f scaling a n d ro o t p la n in g w ith o r w ith o u t adjuncts. J Am D e n t Assoc. 201 5 ; l4 6 ( 7 ):5 2 5 -3 5 . 11. University o f O rtow a. Statistical Significance an d C linical Im portance. Available at h ttps://w w w .m ed.uottaw a.ca/sim /data/ StatisticaLsign i fic ance_im portance_e.htm . Accessed Nov. 5, 2016. 12. H ujoel P. Levels o f clinical significance, j Evid Base D e n t Pract 2004; 4:32-6. 14 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 Copyright ofAccess isthe property ofAmerican DentalHygienists Association andits content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder’sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.