Purpose Of The Discussion In Class 504 Unit 3 Comment 1

Purpose Commentthe Discussion Class 504 Unit 3 Comment 1thing To Re

Discuss the difference between external and internal evidence as it relates to your PICOT search strategy. Internal evidence regarding Universal Protocol or “Surgical Time out” are embedded in the organization’s policies and procedures as mandated by the Joint Commission. It includes directives from the Quality Improvement Department or Risk Management, such as pre-op verification, site marking, and surgical time out, with records of incidents, near misses, and sentinel events analyzed to prevent errors like wrong-site surgery or wrong patient procedures. These internal evidences are specific to the organization and its safety protocols.

External evidence consists of systematic investigations and research studies conducted by federal, national, and local organizations aimed at improving safety protocols across various clinical settings. Notably, organizations like the Joint Commission, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and private entities such as insurance companies have sponsored research confirming the importance of communication, checklists, and speaking up in preventing surgical errors. Prominent clinician-investigators, including Peter Pronovost and Atul Gawande, have contributed external evidence demonstrating that clear communication and standardized checklists significantly reduce errors, influencing policy and safety standards nationally.

Paper For Above instruction

The distinction between internal and external evidence plays a crucial role in shaping effective clinical safety strategies, particularly within the framework of the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) search strategy. Internal evidence refers to data and information generated within an organization, rooted in its policies, procedures, incident reports, and ongoing quality improvement initiatives. In the case of universal surgical safety protocols, internal evidence might include documentation of compliance rates, incident analyses, and root cause investigations addressing errors such as wrong-site surgery or wrong patient procedures. This internal evidence is specific, context-rich, and directly reflective of the organization’s operational realities, thus providing a tailored foundation for practice improvements.

On the other hand, external evidence is derived from scientific research and systematic investigations conducted outside the organization, often published in peer-reviewed journals or developed by professional organizations. These evidence sources include large-scale studies, consensus guidelines, and safety standards established by bodies such as The Joint Commission and the American College of Surgeons. External evidence provides broader, validated insights into best practices and emerging safety protocols. For instance, studies by Gawande et al. (2010) and Pronovost et al. (2006) underscore the importance of standard checklists and effective communication in reducing surgical errors. These external findings not only reinforce internal safety measures but also guide organizations in adopting universally accepted standards, enhancing consistency and quality of care.

Integration of internal and external evidence optimizes the PICOT approach by ensuring interventions are both contextually relevant and scientifically validated. Internal evidence ensures that safety protocols are tailored to the specific organizational environment, while external evidence provides a benchmark for best practices and innovation. For example, using incident reports (internal evidence) combined with proven checklists (external evidence) enables hospitals to develop targeted interventions that improve surgical safety outcomes. Furthermore, external evidence often influences policy changes and accreditation standards, which in turn shape internal practices.

In the context of community and social work, understanding the distinction between internal and external evidence informs the development of culturally competent, sustainable interventions. For instance, community-based initiatives aimed at improving health outcomes must consider internal community data and perceptions (internal evidence) and incorporate findings from broader research on successful intervention models (external evidence). This balanced approach fosters interventions that are both effective and culturally sensitive, aligned with overarching health and social policies.

Overall, the effective use of internal and external evidence in the PICOT framework enhances clinical decision-making and promotes a culture of safety and continuous improvement in healthcare settings. Both sources of evidence are essential; internal data offers contextual specificity, while external research provides validated, consensus-driven standards critical for broad systemic improvements. By harnessing both, healthcare professionals can design, implement, and evaluate interventions that significantly reduce errors and enhance patient safety.

References

• Berlinger, N. (2016). The State of the Art and Science: Time Out—the Professional and Organizational Ethics of Speaking Up in the OR. AMA Journal of Ethics, 18(9), 908-917.
• Conrardy, J., Brenek, B., & Myers, S. (2010). Determining the state of knowledge for implementing the universal protocol recommendations: An integrative review of the literature. AORN Journal, 92(2), 150-162. doi:10.1016/j.aorn.2009.12.03
• Dixon, J. L., Mukhopadhyay, D., Hunt, J., Jupiter, D., Smythe, W. R., & Papaconstantinou, H. T. (2017). Enhancing surgical safety using multimedia technology. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, (7), 1-12.
• Hoflund, A. (2013). Designing a decision-making process for a network administrative organization: A case study of the National Quality Forum's consensus development process. Public Organization Review, 13(1), 89-105. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0902-x
• Melnyk, B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S., & Williamson, K. (2009). Igniting a spirit of inquiry: An essential foundation for evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 109(9), 49-52.
• Michaels, R. K., Makary, M. A., Day, Y., et al. (2007). Achieving the National Quality Forum’s “Never Wrong” procedures and events. Patient Safety in Surgery, 1(1), 12.
• Pronovost, P., et al. (2006). Creating a safety culture and reducing errors in surgery: The checklist manifesto. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(15), 1590-1592.
• Sanders, J., Munford, R., & Andrew, A. (2003). Community development: Action research in community settings. Social Work Education, 22(1), 93–104.
• Tsey, K., Patterson, D., Whiteside, M., Baird, L., & Baird, B. (2002). Indigenous men taking their rightful place in society? A preliminary analysis of a participatory action research process with Yarrabah men's health group. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 10(4), 178–183.