Conectar
The intent of the PICOT (i.e., Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) method is to formulate focused clinical questions to facilitate the discovery of relevant evidence through systematic searching, with the components of the question serving as the foundation for the search. Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) graduates use evidence-based practices to institute changes in their organizations' systems and policies, thereby yielding positive effects on both patient and system outcomes. Given that the clinical question is the foundation of the evidence-based practice process, DNP graduates' competence in the PICOT method needs to be better understood.
This analysis aimed to describe how DNP students used the PICOT method to ask clinical questions in their DNP projects.
Project questions were retrieved from a subset (n = 129, 60.56%) of an existing national random sample of publicly available DNP projects spanning the years 2010 to 2021 from Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education-accredited schools (n = 213). Project questions using the PICOT method were further evaluated with a scoring system of 0 = no and 1 = yes for missing elements, formatting, directional outcome, and project purpose. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more errors. Discussion among five researchers, until agreement was achieved, yielded consensus.
Although the PICOT method was project author-identified in 66 (31.0%) projects, only four (6%) followed the PICOT method. All 66 (100%) were intervention questions. There were 2.74 (SD 1.55) mean errors, ranging from 0 to 6. No questions were missing P or O. Specific errors included missing I 3 (4.5%) or missing C 37 (56%), poor formatting 34 (51.5%), directional outcome 44 (66.7%), and project purpose 38 (57.6%). Thirty-three (50%) of the questions were missing T; however, T is not used for searching, so researchers recalculated the mean error without T (M = 2.24, SD = 1.28, range 0–5).
Gaps in the accurate use of the PICOT method to construct clinical questions can lead to biased searches, inaccurate clinical problem identification, and, when used as the project purpose, jumping to non-evidence-based solutions. Academic faculty and clinical educators can mitigate these skewed outcomes and enhance their impact on quality outcomes by helping DNP-prepared nurses shore up this foundational skill.
While the factors commonly associated with an increased risk of child maltreatment (CM) were found to be increased during COVID-19, reports of actual maltreatment showed varying trends. Similarly, evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on CM within the European Cooperation on Science and Technology and Network Collaborative (COST) Action countries remains inconsistent. This scoping review aims to explore the extent and nature of evidence pertaining to CM within the countries affiliated with the Child Abuse and Neglect in Europe Action Network (Euro-CAN), funded by the COST.
Key electronic databases were searched to identify eligible papers, reports and other material published between January 2020 and April 2023: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, Scopus and Web of Science. To cover the breadth of evidence, a systematic and broad search strategy was applied using a combination of keywords and controlled vocabulary for four concepts: children, maltreatment, COVID-19 and Euro-CAN countries, without restrictions on study design or language. Grey literature was searched in OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently screen full-text publications for eligibility and undertake data extraction, using a customised grid. The screening criteria and data charting will be piloted by the research team.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews will be followed to present the results. Results will be summarised in a tabular form and narratively.
This review will identify and summarise publicly available data, without requiring ethical approval. The findings will be disseminated to the Euro-CAN Network and reported to the COST Association. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This protocol is registered on Open Science Framework.
The study summarises the selection prescreen criteria currently used in the UK for a uterus transplant and highlights the number of women who are suitable to proceed.
To assess the demographics, motivations, reasons and suitability among women with absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI) to undergo uterine transplantation (UTx).
A cross-sectional survey.
An electronic questionnaire was sent via email to women with AUFI who had previously been referred to the UTx research team or approached the Womb Transplant UK Charity. The questions assessed suitability to undergo UTx based on demographic information, perceptions to adoption and surrogacy and reasons why UTx was preferable. Responses were assessed against the study selection criteria.
Women with AUFI.
210 women completed the questionnaire. The most common aetiology of AUFI in our cohort was Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (68%; n=143) whereas 29% (n=62) had previously undergone hysterectomy. 63% (n=132) of the cohort had previously considered adoption, 5% (n=11) had attempted it and 2 (1%) had successfully adopted. The most common reason cited to undergo UTx over adoption was to experience gestation (n=63; 53%), while 37% (n=44) wanted a biologically related child. 76% (n=160) of participants had previously considered surrogacy, 22 (10%) had attempted it and 2 (1%) had successfully become mothers using a surrogate. The most common reason to undergo UTx over surrogacy was to experience gestation (n=77; 54%). 15% (n=21) were concerned about the legal implications, 14% (n=20) identified the financial cost as a barrier and 8% (n=12) could not consider it due to religious reasons. On adhering to the selection criteria, 65 (31%) women were suitable to proceed with the trial.
The study demonstrates that implementing commonly used selection criteria for a UTx led to an attrition rate of more than two-thirds of women who requested to initially undergo the process. As more studies present outcomes following UTx, critical assessment of the selection criteria currently used is warranted to ensure potential recipients are not being unnecessarily excluded.
It is common for community-based healthcare providers (CHPs)—many of whom have not received specialised training in wound care—to deliver initial and ongoing management for various wound types and diverse populations. Wounds in any setting can rapidly transition to a stalled, hard-to-heal wound (HTHW) that is not following a normal healing trajectory. Failure to recognise or address issues that cause delayed healing can lead to increased costs, healthcare utilisation and suffering. To encourage early intervention by CHPs, a panel of wound care experts developed actionable evidence-based recommendations for CHPs delineating characteristics and appropriate care in identifying and treating HTHWs. A HTHW is a wound that fails to progress towards healing with standard therapy in an orderly and timely manner and should be referred to a qualified wound care provider (QWCP) for advanced assessment and diagnosis if not healed or reduced in size by 40%–50% within 4 weeks. HTHWs occur in patients with multiple comorbidities, and display increases in exudate, infection, devitalised tissue, maceration or pain, or no change in wound size. CHPs can play an important initial role by seeing the individual's HTHW risk, addressing local infection and providing an optimal wound environment. An easy-to-follow one-page table was developed for the CHP to systematically identify, evaluate and treat HTHWs, incorporating a basic toolkit with items easily obtainable in common office/clinic practice settings. A flow chart using visual HTHW clinical cues is also presented to address CHPs with different learning styles. These tools encourage delivery of appropriate early interventions that can improve overall healthcare efficiency and cost.
FreshRSS 