Search

Aims and objectives: To explore the evidence‐based nursing practice (EBNP) competencies of clinical and academic nurses and their collaboration needs for supporting EBNP. Background: Academic‐practice partnerships have strong potential to overcome the key barriers to EBNP. However, there is little known about the collaboration needs of clinical and academic nurses for EBNP. Design: A cross‐sectional study. Methods: We recruited clinical and academic nurses online during November 2021 to January 2022. Using a reliable and validated scale and adapted questionnaires, data were collected relating to demographic information, EBNP‐related resources availability, EBNP competencies and EBNP collaboration needs. These data were described using descriptive statistical methods. The t test, χ2 test and Mann–Whitney U test were used to evaluate if the different responses between clinical and academic nurses were statistically significant. This study was reported following the STROBET checklist. Results: Two 240 clinical nurses and 232 academic nurses submitted questionnaires. There was no difference in overall EBNP competence between clinical and academic nurses. However, clinical nurses reported lower levels of competence and stronger intentions to collaborate with academic nurses when searching for, appraising, and synthesising evidence. Academic nurses reported lower levels of competence and stronger intentions to collaborate with clinical nurses for disseminating and implementing evidence. Conclusion: Clinical and academic nurses both reported high needs for collaborating to overcome their perceived role limitations. Clinical and academic nurses have different strengths and limitations in EBNP. These role differences and intentions to collaborate for different dimensions of EBNP competence suggest that clinical and academic nursing roles could be complementary to each other, offering opportunities for synergistic collaborations to better support overall EBNP. Relevance to clinical practice: Healthcare and academic institutions should promote academic‐practice partnerships as opportunities to gain complementary expertise on different dimensions of EBNP, and to improve nurses' competencies and confidence in EBNP overall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endotracheal suctioning is one of the most frequently performed invasive procedures by intensive care nurses. Nurses should have adequate knowledge and skills to perform endotracheal suctioning based on the best evidence. Little is known about intensive care nurses' knowledge and practice of evidence-based endotracheal suctioning in Chinese hospitals. The purpose of this study was to investigate intensive care nurses' knowledge and practice of evidence-based recommendations regarding endotracheal suctioning. Specifically, the study aimed to examine (1) intensive care nurses' awareness of and adherence to endotracheal suctioning guidelines and (2) factors influencing their level of awareness and adherence. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 310 staff nurses working in intensive care units was carried out at Changsha, China. Data on participants' characteristics, awareness of, and adherence to the endotracheal suctioning guidelines were collected through online questionnaires. Following univariate descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis H test were performed using Software Package Statistical Analysis Version 23.0. Results: A total of 281 nurses completed and returned the survey (response rate = 90.6 %). One-half to three-quarters of the nurses knew 21 of the 26 evidence-based practices and believed their practices followed the guidelines. Over half of them were unaware of the difference between open and close suctions and the pros and cons of using hyperinflation. Almost 50 % of nurses believed some of their clinical practices did not follow the evidence-based recommendations, such as not routinely using normal saline and using 80–120 mmHg suction pressure during endotracheal suctioning. Nurses with endotracheal suctioning training demonstrated significantly higher awareness of endotracheal suctioning recommendations and higher adherence levels than untrained nurses. Conclusions: The study findings revealed that Chinese intensive care nurses lacked awareness of several essential evidence-based endotracheal suctioning practices, and there were gaps between their current practice and the guideline recommendations. Further research should emphasize revealing barriers and facilitators of implementing evidence-based endotracheal suctioning practices as well as developing context-suitable interventions for guideline implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]