Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Annie Nickum, Emily Johnson-Barlow, Rebecca Raszewski, Ryan Rafferty
{"title":"Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric.","authors":"Annie Nickum,&nbsp;Emily Johnson-Barlow,&nbsp;Rebecca Raszewski,&nbsp;Ryan Rafferty","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2022.1257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Point-of-care tools (PoCTs) provide evidence-based information on patient care and procedures at the time of need. Registered nurses have unique practice needs, and many PoCTs are marketed to support their practice. However, there is little reported evidence in the literature about evaluating nursing-focused PoCTs.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>The investigators developed a rubric containing evaluation criteria based on content, coverage of nursing topics, transparency of the evidence, user perception, and customization of PoCTs for supporting nursing practice. The investigators selected five PoCTs cited in the literature and of interest to local nursing leadership: ClinicalKey for Nursing, DynaMed, Lippincott's Advisor and Procedures, Nursing Reference Center Plus, and UpToDate. Application of the rubric found Lippincott had the highest coverage of diagnoses, while ClinicalKey for Nursing had strong content focused on interventions and outcomes. Nursing Reference Center Plus provided the most well-rounded coverage of nursing terminology and topics. DynaMed and UpToDate were more transparent with indicating conflict of interest, but both had lower coverage of nursing terminology, content, and care processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>None of the five PoCTs strongly met all of the evaluated criteria. The rubric developed for this study highlights each PoCT's strengths and weaknesses that can then be used to inform the decision-making process based on priorities and budget. The investigators recommend licensing a nursing PoCT and a PoCT like DynaMed or UpToDate to provide comprehensive, evidence-based, patient care coverage and to meet the diverse information needs of nurses.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"110 3","pages":"358-364"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782654/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1257","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Point-of-care tools (PoCTs) provide evidence-based information on patient care and procedures at the time of need. Registered nurses have unique practice needs, and many PoCTs are marketed to support their practice. However, there is little reported evidence in the literature about evaluating nursing-focused PoCTs.

Case presentation: The investigators developed a rubric containing evaluation criteria based on content, coverage of nursing topics, transparency of the evidence, user perception, and customization of PoCTs for supporting nursing practice. The investigators selected five PoCTs cited in the literature and of interest to local nursing leadership: ClinicalKey for Nursing, DynaMed, Lippincott's Advisor and Procedures, Nursing Reference Center Plus, and UpToDate. Application of the rubric found Lippincott had the highest coverage of diagnoses, while ClinicalKey for Nursing had strong content focused on interventions and outcomes. Nursing Reference Center Plus provided the most well-rounded coverage of nursing terminology and topics. DynaMed and UpToDate were more transparent with indicating conflict of interest, but both had lower coverage of nursing terminology, content, and care processes.

Conclusion: None of the five PoCTs strongly met all of the evaluated criteria. The rubric developed for this study highlights each PoCT's strengths and weaknesses that can then be used to inform the decision-making process based on priorities and budget. The investigators recommend licensing a nursing PoCT and a PoCT like DynaMed or UpToDate to provide comprehensive, evidence-based, patient care coverage and to meet the diverse information needs of nurses.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

关注护理点护理工具:新评估标准的应用。
目的:护理点工具(poct)在需要时提供关于患者护理和程序的循证信息。注册护士有独特的实践需求,许多poct被推销以支持他们的实践。然而,文献中很少有关于评估以护理为重点的poct的报道证据。案例介绍:研究人员制定了一个包含基于内容、护理主题覆盖范围、证据透明度、用户感知和poct定制支持护理实践的评估标准的标题。研究人员选择了文献中引用的五个poct,并对当地护理领导感兴趣:临床护理关键,DynaMed, Lippincott's Advisor and Procedures,护理参考中心Plus和UpToDate。应用标题发现Lippincott的诊断覆盖率最高,而ClinicalKey for Nursing的内容集中在干预措施和结果上。护理参考中心Plus提供了最全面的护理术语和主题的覆盖。DynaMed和UpToDate在显示利益冲突方面更加透明,但两者对护理术语、内容和护理过程的覆盖率都较低。结论:5例poct均不完全符合所有评价标准。为本研究制定的标题强调了每个PoCT的优势和劣势,然后可用于根据优先事项和预算为决策过程提供信息。研究人员建议授权护理PoCT和像DynaMed或UpToDate这样的PoCT,以提供全面的、基于证据的患者护理覆盖,并满足护士的各种信息需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信