Search

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the cornerstone of sound patient care. Despite the known importance of disseminating EBP, of the 600 reporting guidelines registered with the EQUATOR network, none exist on reporting an EBP project. This lack of guidance leads to publications that lack rigor and discourages more novice writers who may not know where to begin., Aims: The purpose of this study was to establish Reporting Guidelines for EBP projects by achieving consensus among subject matter experts (SMEs) regarding the required components for a high-quality report., Methods: This study followed a modified Delphi technique. The first round solicited free-text responses regarding reporting sections and sub-sections. The team analyzed these results and incorporated information from the literature to generate items for the second round. In the second and third rounds, participants ranked each section on a Likert scale of 1-4 (not relevant to extremely relevant) and provided free-text revision suggestions. Items that reached a 70% consensus moved from one round to the next., Results: SMEs reached consensus on 6 sections and 30 sub-sections. Sections address the process for determining best practice recommendations as well as implementation into practice. Headers include (1) "Introduction," (2) "EBP Design," (3) "Methods to Generate Recommendations," (4) "Evidence Findings," (5) "Implementation," and (6) "Conclusion." All items are unaffiliated with specific EBP models, hierarchies, or question formats., Linking Evidence to Action: The Reporting Guidelines for EBP Projects is a checklist of items with associated descriptors that should be addressed in articles reporting an EBP project. The intention is to provide a roadmap of the items required to publish EBP efforts. It is meant to create a set of expectation for journal editors to provide concrete guidance for authors and elevate the quality and quantity of EBP projects in the literature., (© 2024 The Author(s). Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Sigma Theta Tau International.)

Objectives: To evaluate a system of prehospital thrombolysis, delivered by paramedics, in meeting the national service framework's targets for the management of acute myocardial infarction., Design: Prospective observational cohort study comparing patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction considered for thrombolysis in the prehospital environment with patients treated in hospital., Setting: The catchment area of a large teaching hospital, including urban and rural areas., Participants: 201 patients presenting concurrently over a 12 month period who had changes to the electrocardiogram that were diagnostic of acute myocardial infarction or who received thrombolysis for suspected acute myocardial infarction., Main Outcome Measures: Time from first medical contact to initiation of thrombolysis (call to needle time), number of patients given thrombolysis appropriately, and all cause mortality in hospital., Results: The median call to needle time for patients treated before arriving in hospital (n=28) was 52 (95% confidence interval 41 to 62) minutes. Patients from similar rural areas who were treated in hospital (n=43) had a median time of 125 (104 to 140) minutes. This represents a median time saved of 73 minutes (P < 0.001). Sixty minutes after medical contact 64% of patients (18/28) treated before arrival in hospital had received thrombolysis; this compares with 4% of patients (2/43) in a cohort from similar areas. Median call to needle time for patients from urban areas (n=107) was 80 (78 to 93) minutes. Myocardial infarction was confirmed in 89% of patients (25/28) who had received prehospital thrombolysis; this compares with 92% (138/150) in the two groups of patients receiving thrombolysis in hospital., Conclusions: Thrombolysis delivered by paramedics with support from the base hospital can meet the national targets for early thrombolysis. The system has been shown to work well and can be introduced without delay.