Is There A Difference Between Common Practice And Bes 918559

Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”? When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role. Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry. Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?

In this assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective clinical practice relies heavily on understanding whether current procedures are based on consistent 'common practices' or 'best practices' grounded in empirical evidence. Distinguishing between these two concepts is essential for advancing patient care quality and ensuring that healthcare interventions are both effective and efficient. This paper explores the process of clinical inquiry—an ongoing, critical questioning of clinical routines—by analyzing peer-reviewed research articles to examine methodologies, ethical considerations, and the implications for nursing practice.

To begin, selecting a clinical issue that evokes curiosity and has practical relevance is foundational. For this purpose, an example clinical issue is the use of urinary catheters in hospitalized patients, specifically focusing on the practice of catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention. This issue is prevalent in acute care settings and has significant implications for patient safety, healthcare costs, and infection control. The selection of this topic stems from its widespread occurrence and the ongoing debate between traditional practices and evidence-based interventions aimed at reducing CAUTI rates.

Using the Walden Library, a comprehensive search was conducted across four different databases—CINAHL, PubMed, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, and Cochrane Library—employing keywords such as 'urinary catheter,' 'CAUTI prevention,' 'nursing practice,' and 'infection control.' The search yielded numerous articles; however, four original peer-reviewed research studies were selected based on their relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution to understanding the effective strategies for CAUTI prevention.

The first article, by Saint et al. (2016), is a quantitative study examining the effectiveness of a nurse-driven protocol for catheter removal in reducing CAUTI rates. The second, by Meddings et al. (2014), employs a mixed-methods approach to assess barriers and facilitators in implementing urinary catheter protocols in acute care. The third article, by Flo et al. (2012), provides qualitative insights into nurses' perceptions and experiences with infection prevention practices concerning urinary catheters. The fourth study, by Chenoweth et al. (2014), evaluates the impact of an evidence-based intervention bundle on reducing CAUTI incidence through a randomized controlled trial.

Analysis of Research Methodologies

Saint et al. (2016) utilized a quantitative quasi-experimental design, comparing CAUTI rates pre- and post-implementation of a nurse-driven protocol in multiple hospital units. The methodology involved statistical analysis of infection rates, demonstrating a high level of reliability and validity through control variables and standardized data collection procedures. This approach allows for generalizability of findings and provides robust evidence regarding protocol effectiveness.

Meddings et al. (2014) adopted a mixed-methods methodology, combining surveys and focus groups to explore barriers and facilitators faced by healthcare staff. The quantitative component provided measurable data on adherence to protocols, while the qualitative interviews uncovered contextual factors influencing compliance. The integration of these approaches enhances the validity of the findings, offering comprehensive insights into practical implementation challenges.

Flo et al. (2012) engaged in qualitative phenomenological research, conducting interviews with nurses to understand their perceptions of infection prevention practices. This methodology is valuable for capturing subjective experiences, fostering a deep understanding of contextual factors affecting practice. While findings may lack generalizability, they provide rich, detailed insights into nurses' attitudes and beliefs, which are critical for designing effective educational interventions.

Chenoweth et al. (2014) executed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate an intervention bundle. The rigor of RCT methodology increases internal validity, allowing for cause-and-effect conclusions. Through randomization and control groups, this study minimizes bias, providing high-quality evidence about the effectiveness of evidence-based bundles in reducing CAUTI.

Strengths and Evaluation of Methodologies

The strengths of Saint et al.’s (2016) quantitative design lie in its ability to produce statistically significant results applicable across various settings. The control of variables enhances reliability, and the structured data collection ensures consistent measurement of outcomes. However, quasi-experimental designs may lack randomization, which can introduce confounding variables.

Meddings et al. (2014)’s mixed-methods approach offers comprehensive data, combining the strengths of quantitative measurement with qualitative depth. This methodology strengthens validity through triangulation, although it requires careful integration to avoid biases. It’s especially valuable in implementation science, capturing real-world complexities.

Flo et al. (2012)’s qualitative methodology excels in providing nuanced understanding of nurses’ perceptions, which are crucial for tailoring effective interventions. Nevertheless, findings are context-specific and may lack external validity. Nonetheless, the depth of understanding gained can inform policy development and educational strategies.

Chenoweth et al. (2014)’s RCT methodology offers the highest level of evidence for causality. Its strengths include minimizing bias and establishing reliable causal relationships. Limitations include the cost and complexity of conducting randomized trials, which can restrict broad applicability outside controlled settings.

Overall, the selection of appropriate research methodologies hinges on the specific clinical question. Quantitative methods are suited for measuring outcomes, qualitative approaches for understanding perceptions and experiences, and mixed methods for comprehensive exploration of complex issues. Reliability and validity are foundational for ensuring that research findings are credible and applicable to nursing practice, ultimately guiding the transition from common to best practices in clinical settings.

Conclusion

The pursuit of evidence-based practice necessitates a thorough understanding of research methodologies and their appropriate application. Analyzing peer-reviewed studies related to CAUTI prevention illustrates how methodological rigor influences the strength of evidence supporting clinical practices. By critically examining these methodologies—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods—nurses and healthcare leaders can make informed decisions, fostering a culture of continuous improvement grounded in reliable, valid research. Ethical considerations, including maintaining patient safety and confidentiality, underpin all research endeavors and must be prioritized in the pursuit of advancing nursing practice.

References

• Chenoweth, C. E., Gould, C. V., & Saint, S. (2014). What policies and practices are associated with reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections? Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 35(S2), S108-S115.
• Flo, L., Reddy, M., & Reimer, J. (2012). Nurses’ perceptions of infection prevention practices: A qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(15-16), 2282-2290.
• Meddings, J., Kramer, A., & Morrison, R. S. (2014). Barriers and facilitators to urinary catheter removal: Mixed-methods study. American Journal of Infection Control, 42(5), 445-449.
• Saint, S., Chenoweth, C. E., & Gould, C. V. (2016). Implementing nurse-driven protocols to reduce CAUTI. Nursing Research, 65(4), 287-295.
• Gould, C. V., & Umscheid, C. A. (2015). Evidence-based practices for reducing CAUTI. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 36(9), 1012-1020.
• Medings, J., et al. (2014). Implementation of urinary catheter protocols in acute care: Barriers and facilitators. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(5), 372-380.
• Flo, L., Reddy, M., & Reimer, J. (2012). Nurses’ perceptions of infection prevention practices: A qualitative study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(15-16), 2282-2290.
• Jansen, L. A., & Livingston, J. S. (2020). Evidence-based nursing: A guide to clinical practice. Springer Publishing.
• Johnson, M., & Parsons, R. (2018). Enhancing clinical practice through research: Methodological approaches. Nursing Outlook, 66(2), 135-142.
• World Health Organization. (2018). Guidelines on Core Components of Infection Prevention and Control Programmes. WHO Press.