Brett Williams1, Samuel Perillo2, Ted Brown3. 1. Department of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: brett.williams@monash.edu. 2. Department of Community Emergency Health and Paramedic Practice, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Occupational Therapy, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The responsibility to implement evidence-based practice (EBP) in a health care workplace does not fall solely on the individual health care professional. Organisational barriers relate to the workplace setting, administrational support, infrastructure, and facilities available for the retrieval, critique, summation, utilisation, and integration of research findings in health care practices and settings. OBJECTIVE: Using a scoping review approach, the organisational barriers to the implementation of EBP in health care settings were sought. METHOD: This scoping review used the first five of the six stage methodology developed by Levac et al. (2010). The five stages used are: 1) Identify the research question; 2) identify relevant studies; 3) study selection; 4) charting the data; and 5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. The following databases were searched from January 2004 until February 2014: Medline, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL. RESULTS: Of the 49 articles included in this study, there were 29 cross-sectional surveys, six descriptions of specific interventions, seven literature reviews, four narrative reviews, nine qualitative studies, one ethnographic study and one systematic review. The articles were analysed and five broad organisational barriers were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review sought to map the breadth of information available on the organisational barriers to the use of EBP in health care settings. Even for a health care professional who is motivated and competent in the use of EBP; all of these barriers will impact on their ability to increase and maintain their use of EBP in the workplace.
BACKGROUND: The responsibility to implement evidence-based practice (EBP) in a health care workplace does not fall solely on the individual health care professional. Organisational barriers relate to the workplace setting, administrational support, infrastructure, and facilities available for the retrieval, critique, summation, utilisation, and integration of research findings in health care practices and settings. OBJECTIVE: Using a scoping review approach, the organisational barriers to the implementation of EBP in health care settings were sought. METHOD: This scoping review used the first five of the six stage methodology developed by Levac et al. (2010). The five stages used are: 1) Identify the research question; 2) identify relevant studies; 3) study selection; 4) charting the data; and 5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. The following databases were searched from January 2004 until February 2014: Medline, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL. RESULTS: Of the 49 articles included in this study, there were 29 cross-sectional surveys, six descriptions of specific interventions, seven literature reviews, four narrative reviews, nine qualitative studies, one ethnographic study and one systematic review. The articles were analysed and five broad organisational barriers were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review sought to map the breadth of information available on the organisational barriers to the use of EBP in health care settings. Even for a health care professional who is motivated and competent in the use of EBP; all of these barriers will impact on their ability to increase and maintain their use of EBP in the workplace.
Authors: Terri Jabaley; Niya Xiong; Susanne Conley; Teresa Mazeika; Danielle Johnson; Brenda A Biggins; Nancy Hilton; Fangxin Hong Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Terri Jabaley; Niya Xiong; Susanne Conley; Teresa Mazeika; Danielle Johnson; Brenda A Biggins; Nancy Hilton; Fangxin Hong Journal: Can Oncol Nurs J Date: 2022-04-01
Authors: Kimberly S Hsiung; Jason B Colditz; Elizabeth A McGuier; Galen E Switzer; Helena M VonVille; Barbara L Folb; David J Kolko Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez; Joan Ernest de Pedro-Gómez; José Miguel Morales-Asencio; Miquel Bennasar-Veny; Pedro Sastre-Fullana; Albert Sesé-Abad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sandra Pol-Castañeda; Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-Calero; Concepción Zaforteza-Lallemand; Carlos Javier Villafáfila-Gomila; Ian Blanco-Mavillard; Francisco Ferrer-Cruz; Joan De Pedro-Gómez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maria Jacobs; Liesbeth Boersma; Frits V Merode; Andre Dekker; Frank Verhaegen; Luc Linden; Philippe Lambin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.039