This article describes the importance of evidence-based nursing leadership in the development and evaluation of a joint academic-service nursing leadership journal club. The use of scientific evidence and the embracing of an environment of continuous learning are essential to quality practice; however, nursing leadership has been slow to apply evidence-based practice to their own work. A noontime monthly meeting schedule, incentivized by lunch, was organized as a nursing leadership journal club. Articles were selected and reviewed monthly, and the process was formally evaluated using a written evaluation at the end of year 1. Eighteen articles were appraised by the group with 6 topics identified. Positive results included increased knowledge, competence of the leader, and attainment of goals. Recommendations include revision of goals, plans to share leadership of the group, development of a rigorous evaluation of outcomes, and dissemination of findings. The journal club was valuable in increasing awareness of nursing leadership research, promoting leadership development, and improving competence in the performance of research appraisals. Process improvement and further study are needed to increase understanding regarding the benefits of leadership journal clubs.
"Leadership development programs  and formal training  have been used to prepare nurse leaders to meet health care challenges. A joint academic-service nursing leadership journal club was shown to be effective at increasing awareness of nursing leadership research and promoting leadership . The existence of strong collaborations between nurse leaders and nursing staff may also promote shared governance, exemplified by things such as nurse participation in practice council activities. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper describes the changes in transformational leadership and quality outcomes that occurred between 2008 and 2011 in a Finnish university hospital that is aiming to meet the Magnet standards. Measurements were conducted in 2008-2009 and subsequently in 2010-2011 by surveying nursing staff and patients. Nursing staff were surveyed using web-based surveys to collect data on transformational leadership (n 1 = 499, n 2 = 498) and patient safety culture (n 1 = 234, n 2 = 512) and using both postal and web-based surveys to gather information on job satisfaction (n 1 = 1176, n 2 = 779). Questionnaires were used to collect data on care satisfaction from patients (n 1 = 678, n 2 = 867). Transformational leadership was measured using the 54-item TLS, job satisfaction with the 37-item KUHJSS, patient safety culture with the 42-item HSPSC, and patient satisfaction using the 42-item RHCS questionnaire. Transformational leadership, which was the weakest area, was at the same level between the two measurement occasions. Job satisfaction scores increased between 2008 and 2010, although they were generally excellent in 2008. The scores for nonpunitive responses to errors and events reported were also higher in the 2010-2011 surveys. The highest empirical outcome scores related to patient satisfaction. The project and the development initiatives undertaken since 2008 seem to have had positive effects on empirical quality outcomes.
"This promising data indicates that many clinicians are indeed participating in a task that is central to both EBP and research generating activities. In some clinical settings, systematic training in conducting literature searches as well as the formation of journal clubs and EBP groups has helped to train the clinical workforce on how to conduct literature searches to answer clinical questions [23,24]. Searching for literature is also an integral skill developed in undergraduate training programs for all students. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Recent initiatives within an Australia public healthcare service have seen a focus on increasing the research capacity of their workforce. One of the key initiatives involves encouraging clinicians to be research generators rather than solely research consumers. As a result, baseline data of current research capacity are essential to determine whether initiatives encouraging clinicians to undertake research have been effective. Speech pathologists have previously been shown to be interested in conducting research within their clinical role; therefore they are well positioned to benefit from such initiatives. The present study examined the current research interest, confidence and experience of speech language pathologists (SLPs) in a public healthcare workforce, as well as factors that predicted clinician research engagement.
Data were collected via an online survey emailed to an estimated 330 SLPs working within Queensland, Australia. The survey consisted of 30 questions relating to current levels of interest, confidence and experience performing specific research tasks, as well as how frequently SLPs had performed these tasks in the last 5 years.
Although 158 SLPs responded to the survey, complete data were available for only 137. Respondents were more confident and experienced with basic research tasks (e.g., finding literature) and less confident and experienced with complex research tasks (e.g., analysing and interpreting results, publishing results). For most tasks, SLPs displayed higher levels of interest in the task than confidence and experience. Research engagement was predicted by highest qualification obtained, current job classification level and overall interest in research.
Respondents generally reported levels of interest in research higher than their confidence and experience, with many respondents reporting limited experience in most research tasks. Therefore SLPs have potential to benefit from research capacity building activities to increase their research skills in order to meet organisational research engagement objectives. However, these findings must be interpreted with the caveats that a relatively low response rate occurred and participants were recruited from a single state-wide health service, and therefore may not be representative of the wider SLP workforce.
BMC Health Services Research 04/2013; 13(1):144. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-144 · 1.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The study objective was to understand the meaning of evidence-based management for senior nurse leaders in accredited, public hospitals in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
A phenomenological approach was used to analyze interviews conducted with 10 senior nurse leaders between August 2011 and March 2012. The analytic method was developed by the Brazilian phenomenologist, Martins.
Senior nurse leaders described how they critically appraise many sources of evidence when making managerial decisions. They emphasized the importance of working with their teams to locally adapt and evaluate best evidence associated with managerial decision making and organizational innovations. Their statements also demonstrated how they use evidence-based management to support the adoption of evidence-based practices. They did not, however, provide specific strategies for seeking out and obtaining evidence. Notable challenges were traditional cultures and rigid bureaucracies, while major facilitators included accreditation, teamwork, and shared decision making.
Evidence-based management necessitates a continuous process of locating, implementing, and evaluating evidence. In this study leaders provided multiple, concrete examples of all these processes except seeking out and locating evidence. They also gave examples of other leadership skills associated with successful adoption of evidence-based practice and management, particularly interdisciplinary teamwork and shared decision making.
This study demonstrates senior nurse leaders’ awareness and utilization of evidence-based management. The study also suggests what aspects of evidence-based management need further development, such as more active identification of potential, new organizational innovations.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.