EBP
Sparkle30
synthesisTABLE.docx
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE |
Spector, et al. (2015) |
Brook, et al (2019) |
|
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE |
2 |
2 |
|
1. Are the results of the study valid? |
Yes |
|
|
1a. Were subjects randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups? |
Yes |
|
|
1b. Was random assignment concealed from the individuals who were first enrolling subjects into the study? |
Uncertain |
|
|
1c. Were the subjects and providers kept blind to study group? |
No |
|
|
1d.Were reasons given to explain why subjects did not complete the study? |
No |
|
|
1e.Were the follow-up assessments conducted long enough to fully study the effects of the intervention? |
Yes |
|
|
1f. Were the subjects analyzed in the group to which they were randomly assigned? |
Yes |
|
|
1g.Was the control group appropriate? |
Yes |
|
|
1h.Were the instruments used to measure the outcomes valid and reliable? |
Yes |
|
|
1i.Were the subjects in each of the groups similar on demographic and baseline clinical variables? |
No |
|
|
2.What are the results? |
The evidence from this study shows strong, evidence-based transition programs do improve outcomes for new nurses in their first year of practice and increase their retention. |
|
|
2a. How large is the intervention or treatment effect? |
The treatment effect in far reaching. If each hospital established a strong evidenced based transition program for their nurses in the first year of practice improved safety outcomes, decreased work related stress, increased job satisfaction and retention would ensue. |
|
|
2b. How precise is the intervention or treatment effect? |
While much research has been done, more rigorous research is needed. |
|
LEVEL 4 SYNTHESIS TABLE
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE |
Madhuvu, Plummer, & Morphet (2018) |
Morphet, Kent, Plummer, & Considine (2016) |
|
Level of Evidence |
4 |
4 |
|
Are the results of the study valid? |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Was there a representative and a well-defined sample of patients at similar of patients at a similar point in the course of the disease? |
No |
No |
|
Was follow-up sufficiently long and complete? |
Yes |
No |
|
Were objective and unbiased outcome criteria used? |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Did the analysis adjust for important prognostic risk factors and confounding variables? |
Yes |
No |
|
What are the results? |
Most of the participants had either medical or surgical nursing experience. More than half the nurses continued to work in the ICU more than two years after the program was completed, an increase in retention. |
This Transition to Specialty Practice Program was started to prepare emergency room nurses for work in that specific specialty. There were different durations of the program from 5-12months, clinical prep time of 7-22 days, study days of 2-6, programs of 6-12 months. It was noted that the results varied. Longer programs did not show advantages with professional development. |
|
Will the results help increase new graduate nurse retention? |
Yes |
No |
|
Were the study subjects similar to new graduate nurses locally? |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Will the results lead directly to implementing nurse residency/TPP programs? |
Yes |
Possibly |
LEVEL 5 EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS TABLE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTICLE |
Chant & Westendorf (2019)
|
Eckerson (2018) |
Morphet, et al (2016)
|
Perron, et al (2019) |
Rush, et al (2017)
|
Van Camp & Chappy (2016) |
|
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE |
LEVEL V |
LEVEL V |
LEVEL V |
LEVEL V |
LEVEL V |
LEVEL V |
|
ARE STUDIES CONTAINED IN REVIEW RCTS? |
NONE |
NONE |
NONE |
NONE |
NONE |
NONE |
|
DOES REVIEW CONTAIN DETAILED SEARCH STRATEGY DESCRIPTION? |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
DOES REVIEW DESCRIBE HOW VALIDITY OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES WAS ASSESSED? |
NO |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
ARE RESULTS CONSISTENT ACROSS STUDIES? |
NO |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
IS INDIVIDUAL HOSPITAL OR AGGREGATE DATA USED? |
AGGREGATE |
AGGREGATE |
INDIVIDUAL AND AGGREGATE |
INDIVIDUAL |
INDIVIDUAL AND AGGREGATE |
INDIVIDUAL AND AGGREGATE |
|
HOW LARGE IS THE RESIDENCY/TPP EFFECT (% OF RETENTION)? |
NO SPECIFIC RETENTION DATA PROVIDED: RECOMMENDATION BY INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE IS NRPS TO SUPPORT EVERY NEW NURSE IN TRANSITION TO PRACTICE |
OVER 90% RETENTION RATE IN THE FIRST YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT AND 85% RETENTION RATE ONE YEAR POST EMPLOYMENT |
18 Emergency departments and 13 surveys. No advantages for longer programs
|
36% reduction in turnover rate |
88% AVERAGE |
VARIABLE- 78-90% RETENTION AFTER ONE YEAR - MOSTLY MEASURED IN POST-IMPLEMENTATION RETENTION |
|
ARE THE STUDIED HOSPITALS AND NURSES SIMILAR TO AREA HOSPITALS AND NURSES? |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
IS IT FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT TPP/RESIDENCY PROGRAMS IN AREA HOSPITALS? |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
WERE COSTS/BENEFITS CONSIDERED? |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
|
ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING IMPLEMENTATION OF TPP/RESIDENCY PROGRAMS? |
UNLIKELY |
UNLIKELY |
UNLIKELY |
UNLIKELY but article suggests more research. |
UNLIKELY |
UNLIKELY |
|
DO NEW GRADUATE NURSES PREFER TPP/NURSE RESIDENCY PROGRAMS OVER TRADITIONAL ORIENTATIONS? |
UNCERTAIN |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
YES |
