Conectar
Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence that can help guide evidence-informed decisions in nursing practice, education, and even health policy. Systematic review publications have increased from a sporadic few in 1980s to more than 10,000 systematic reviews published every year and around 30,000 registered in prospective registries.
A cross-sectional design and a variety of data sources were triangulated to identify the journals from which systematic reviews would be evaluated for adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines and scope. Specifically, this study used the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines to assess the reporting of the introduction, methods, information sources and search strategy, study selection process, quality/bias assessments, and results and discussion aspects of the included systematic reviews.
Upon review of the 215 systematic reviews published in 10 top-tier journals in the field of nursing in 2019 and 2020, this study identified several opportunities to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in the context of the 2020 PRISMA statement. Areas of priority for reporting include the following key areas: (1) information sources, (2) search strategies, (3) study selection process, (4) bias reporting, (5) explicit discussion of the implications to policy, and lastly, the need for (6) prospective protocol registration.
The use of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines by authors, peer reviewers, and editors can help to ensure the transparent and detailed reporting of systematic reviews published in the nursing literature.
Systematic reviews are considered strong research evidence that can guide evidence-based practice and even clinical decision-making. This paper addresses some common methodological and process issues among systematic reviews that can guide clinicians and practitioners to be more critical in appraising research evidence that can shape nursing practice.
Despite the documented benefits of the World Health Organisation Patient Safety Checklist compliance rates with implementation continue to cause risk to patient safety. This qualitative systematic review aimed to explore the reported factors that impact compliance and implementation processes related to surgical safety checklists in perioperative settings.
A qualitative systematic review.
A systematic review using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach to synthesize qualitative studies was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases were expansively searched using keywords and subject headings. Articles were assessed using a pre-selected eligibility criterion. Data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken for all included studies and a meta-aggregation performed.
The CINAHL, Medline and Scopus databases were searched in August 2022 and the search was repeated in June 2023.
34 studies were included. Following the synthesis of the findings there were multiple interrelating barriers to checklist compliance that impacted implementation. There were more barriers than enablers reported in existing studies. Enablers included effective leadership, education and training, timely use of audit and feedback, local champions, and the option for local modifications to the surgical checklist. Further research should focus on targeted interventions that improve observed compliance rates to optimize patient safety.
This qualitative systematic review identified multiple key factors that influenced the uptake of the Surgical Safety Checklist in operating theatres.
Surgeon participation, hierarchical culture, complacency, and duplication of existing safety processes were identified which impacted the use and completion of the checklist.
FreshRSS 