Aim-This paper is a report of the effectiveness of a structured multifaceted mentorship programme designed to implement evidence-based practice in a clinical research intensive environment.Background-Barriers to implementing evidence-based practice are well-documented in the literature. Evidence-based practice is associated with higher quality care and better patient outcomes than care that is steeped in tradition. However, the integration of evidence-based practice implementation into daily clinical practice remains inconsistent, and the chasm between research and bedside practice remains substantial.

Background The quantity and diversity of conceptual models in translational science may complicate rather than advance the use of theory. Purpose This paper offers a comparative thematic analysis of the models available to inform knowledge development, transfer, and utilization. Method Literature searches identified 47 models for knowledge translation. Four thematic areas emerged: (1) evidence-based practice and knowledge transformation processes; (2) strategic change to promote adoption of new knowledge; (3) knowledge exchange and synthesis for application and inquiry; (4) designing and interpreting dissemination research. Discussion This analysis distinguishes the contributions made by leaders and researchers at each phase in the process of discovery, development, and service delivery. It also informs the selection of models to guide activities in knowledge translation. Conclusions A flexible theoretical stance is essential to simultaneously develop new knowledge and accelerate the translation of that knowledge into practice behaviors and programs of care that support optimal patient outcomes.

Translational clinical research has emerged as an important priority for the national research enterprise, with a clearly stated mandate to deliver prevention strategies, treatments and cures based on scientific innovations faster to the public. Within this national effort, a lack of consensus persists concerning the need for clinical nurses with expertise and specialized training in study implementation and the delivery of care to research participants. This paper reviews efforts to define and document the role of practicing nurses in implementing studies and coordinating clinical research in a variety of clinical settings and differentiates this clinical role from the role of nurses as scientists and principal investigators. We propose an agenda for building evidence that having nurses provide and coordinate study treatments and procedures can potentially improve research efficiency, participant safety, and the quality of research data. We also provide recommendations for the development of the emerging specialty of clinical research nursing.

Clinical research nursing is a specialty nursing practice focused on the care of research subjects and implementation of clinical research. A five-dimensional model (Clinical Practice [CP], Study Management, Care Coordination and Continuity, Contributing to the Science [CS], Human Subjects Protection) has been validated nationally to represent the domain of clinical research nursing practice. The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency and importance of activities within each dimension as performed by nurses in clinical research and to describe differences between roles. One thousand and four nurses from the NIH Intramural Campus in Bethesda, Maryland, were invited to participate in an anonymous web-based survey. Participants (N = 412) were predominantly female (90%) with ≥11 years research experience (70%). Two hundred eighty-eight respondents (70%) identified themselves as clinical research nurses (CRNs) and 74 (18%) as research nurse coordinators (RNCs). CP activities were reported most frequent and important whereas CS activities were least frequent and important. CRN and RNC activity frequency differed across all dimensions (p < 0.001) with CRNs reporting significantly higher levels of CP activities and significantly lower levels in other dimensions. Delineating specialty activities and practice across roles enhances the understanding of nurses’ role in clinical research and provides groundwork for role-based training.

Purpose/Objectives To develop and validate a taxonomy for the domain of clinical research nursing. Design Survey. Setting Clinical research settings in the United States. Sample A purposefully selected expert panel of 22 nurses who were actively practicing or supervising in a clinical research environment. Methods A study team consisting of nurses with experience in clinical research synthesized peer-reviewed articles, academic curricula, professional guidelines, position descriptions, and expert opinion. Using the Delphi technique, three rounds of surveys were conducted to validate the taxonomy. The three sequential questionnaires were completed over five months. Main Research Variables Activities performed by nurses in a clinical research setting. Findings A taxonomy for clinical research nursing was validated with five dimensions and 52 activities: Clinical Practice (4 activities), Study Management (23 activities), Care Coordination and Continuity (10 activities), Human Subjects Protection (6 activities), and Contributing to the Science (9 activities). Conclusions This study validated activities for direct care providers and nurses with the primary focus of research coordination. The findings identify a variety of activities that are unique to nurses in a clinical research setting. Implications for Nursing Nurses play an integral role in the clinical research enterprise. Validating a taxonomy for the specialty of clinical research nursing allows for roles to be compared across settings, competency requirements to be defined, and nursing organizations to be guided in the development of specialty certification.

No abstract

This ambulatory nursing intensity tool proved to be adaptable to heterogeneous patient populations.

No abstract