Cargando…

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

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 evalua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nickum, Annie, Johnson-Barlow, Emily, Raszewski, Rebecca, Rafferty, Ryan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36589301
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1257
_version_ 1784857395701219328
author Nickum, Annie
Johnson-Barlow, Emily
Raszewski, Rebecca
Rafferty, Ryan
author_facet Nickum, Annie
Johnson-Barlow, Emily
Raszewski, Rebecca
Rafferty, Ryan
author_sort Nickum, Annie
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9782654
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97826542022-12-29 Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric Nickum, Annie Johnson-Barlow, Emily Raszewski, Rebecca Rafferty, Ryan J Med Libr Assoc Case Report 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. University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2022-07-01 2022-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9782654/ /pubmed/36589301 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1257 Text en Copyright © 2022 Annie Nickum, Emily Johnson-Barlow, Rebecca Raszewski, Ryan Rafferty https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Case Report
Nickum, Annie
Johnson-Barlow, Emily
Raszewski, Rebecca
Rafferty, Ryan
Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
title Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
title_full Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
title_fullStr Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
title_full_unstemmed Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
title_short Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
title_sort focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782654/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36589301
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1257
work_keys_str_mv AT nickumannie focusonnursingpointofcaretoolsapplicationofanewevaluationrubric
AT johnsonbarlowemily focusonnursingpointofcaretoolsapplicationofanewevaluationrubric
AT raszewskirebecca focusonnursingpointofcaretoolsapplicationofanewevaluationrubric
AT raffertyryan focusonnursingpointofcaretoolsapplicationofanewevaluationrubric