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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |