Walden NURS6640 Week 3 Assignment 1-Applying Current Literature to Clinical Practice

NURS6640 Week 3 Assignment 1-Applying Current Literature to Clinical Practice

Assignment 1: Applying Current Literature to Clinical Practice

Literature in psychotherapy differs from other areas of clinical practice. Generally, there are no clinical trials in psychotherapy because it is often neither appropriate nor ethical to have controls in psychotherapy research. This sometimes makes it more difficult to translate research findings into practice. In your role, however, you must be able to synthesize current literature and apply it to your own clients. For this Assignment, you begin practicing this skill by examining current literature on psychodynamic therapy and considering how it might translate into your own clinical practice.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Evaluate the application of current literature to clinical practice

To prepare:

Review this week’s Learning Resources and reflect on the insights they provide.

Select one of the psychodynamic therapy articles from the Learning Resources to evaluate for this Assignment.

Note: In nursing practice, it is not uncommon to review current literature and share findings with your colleagues. Approach this Assignment as though you were presenting the information to your colleagues.

The Assignment

In a 5- to 10-slide PowerPoint presentation, address the following:

Provide an overview of the article you selected.

What population is under consideration?

What was the specific intervention that was used? Is this a new intervention or one that was already used?

What were the author’s claims?

Explain the findings/outcomes of the study in the article. Include whether this will translate into practice with your own clients. If so, how? If not, why?

Explain whether the limitations of the study might impact your ability to use the findings/outcomes presented in the article. Support your position with evidence-based literature.

 

 

MORE INFO 

Applying Current Literature to Clinical Practice

Introduction

Guideline development and implementation is an important part of clinical practice. Guidelines offer a systematic approach to practice that identifies best practices based on rigorous systematic reviews of research.

Aims and objectives

The aim of this paper is to illustrate the application of current literature in clinical practice.

The objective is to define the problem and objectives, explain why this is important and provide a roadmap for future research.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)

A clinical practice guideline is a set of recommendations that provide guidance on how to treat patients. They are developed by a group of experts, reviewed by others in the field, and published as an evidence-based resource for physicians and other health care professionals.

Clinical practice guidelines can be used to help guide clinical decisions about which treatments should be used for specific conditions or illnesses. For example, if you have diabetes and your doctor recommends that you take insulin injections twice daily (at 8 am and 1 pm), then it could make sense to follow those recommendations if they’re found in a CPG—especially since other studies have shown them to be effective at reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors like blood pressure levels or lipid levels in people with diabetes who follow them closely enough (so long as there aren’t any complications).

Searching the literature

Searching the literature is a key part of evidence-based practice. There are many different databases to search, and you should develop a search strategy before starting to search. A useful strategy will be tailored to your topic of interest, which may include keywords or phrases that are relevant to your interests (e.g., “gastroenterology”). The effectiveness of various strategies can be evaluated with qualitative research methods such as interviews with experts in their field who have been using particular approaches for some time and could comment on their efficacy and limitations; however, this type of study requires substantial resources and effort that may not be available for all practitioners at all times—particularly those who lack access to trained staff members who would conduct these types of analyses during clinical practice sessions (Waddell et al., 2011).

Selecting articles of relevance

Selecting articles of relevance is an essential step in the process of clinical practice. How to select?

• Clearly define what you are looking for and why. The selection criteria will help you narrow down your list to only those articles that meet your specific needs and expectations. For example, if you want to learn more about how best to treat a particular type of patient using certain medications, then it would be important for you to define exactly what type of article would be most helpful in this regard (i.e., one that was written by someone who has experience treating such patients).

• Assess relevancy based on criteria such as:

• Aims/purposes/goals

• Subject matter expertise (i.e., author’s area of expertise)

Critically appraising an article

Critically appraising an article is a process of evaluation. It involves analysing, evaluating and synthesizing the material presented in the paper to determine its strengths and weaknesses. In order to do this effectively, you’ll need to have a good understanding of what constitutes quality scholarship in your field (and perhaps beyond).

For example: if you’re reading about something new or novel for your area of expertise (say, research on Parkinson’s disease), look out for whether or not it has been peer-reviewed; if so, how many times?

If there aren’t any references cited at all then ask yourself: why did they write this article without referencing previous work? Was it because they didn’t know where else their conclusions could fit in? Or maybe they just didn’t want their names attached somehow – even though they might be able to get an award off someone else’s name who was willing to share their ideas openly instead!

Guidelines for evidence-based practice

To be useful, guidelines must be based on the best available evidence. This includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs, as well as meta-analyses or systematic reviews of meta-analyses. Nonrandomized studies can also provide valuable information if they are conducted by experts in their field and are consistent with other research findings.

Guidelines may also include consensus opinion from experts in clinical practice or research who have collaborated to develop them. Consensus opinion is only considered authoritative if it has been endorsed by a panel of experts who have reviewed all relevant scientific literature available at the time that the guidance was developed, including both randomized controlled trials and other types of evidence.

Bias in clinical research

• Bias is a systematic error that can lead to incorrect conclusions in clinical research.

• The most common sources of bias in clinical trials include:

• The presence of competing interests by the investigators or sponsors; this may result in their failure to disclose potential conflicts with respect to results, conclusions or recommendations; failure to provide full disclosure about all relevant data and information which might influence their interpretation; selective reporting; failure to comply with regulatory requirements (e.g., registration); failure to comply with ICH guidelines on Good Clinical Practice (GCP) standards and investigation protocols (51).

A guideline is a systematic approach to practice that identifies best practices based on rigorous systematic reviews of research.

Guidelines are systematic approaches to practice that identify best practices based on rigorous systematic reviews of research. These guidelines are used as a basis for clinical care and treatment in the form of evidence-based recommendations.

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) is one example of an organization that has created an evidence-based guideline for its members: “AAN Practice Parameters: Treatment Options for Dehydration in Adults With Suspected Sepsis or Septic Shock” (2011). The AAN guideline recommends intravenous rehydration with normal saline (0.9%) over standard isotonic saline solution when treating dehydration caused by sepsis or other causes among adults who present with symptoms compatible with fluid depletion, such as vomiting or diarrhea

Conclusion

The practice of evidence-based medicine is a complex endeavor, and it takes experience to understand how to apply guidelines in the clinical setting. The authors have tried to make this process clear through the use of examples and other resources on their website.