A Descriptive Evaluation of Evidence-Based Rounds in Critical Care Using Mixed Data Types.

objectivesTo pilot and evaluate the implementation of a structured Evidence-Based Rounds (EBR) education model in critical care.

designA mixed data type design was used to evaluate Evidence-Based Rounds in a critical care setting. Structured observational data were captured and open-ended survey responses were submitted by attendees. Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse survey findings.

resultsSeventeen rounds were completed between March 2023 and January 2024 with a total of n = 83 clinical staff members. From these, n = 55 staff completed and submitted evaluation surveys. Rounds were most frequently attended by nurses of all bandings including senior clinical nurses, support workers and student nurses. Evidence-Based Rounds were globally perceived as a positive and useful education strategy and staff were very willing to attend future sessions. Patient outcomes were not directly assessed and rounds specifically facilitated three outcomes: (1) helping staff apply evidence to practice, (2) building staff confidence in presenting clinical information and (3) supporting staff in identifying local improvements to patient care.

conclusionEvidence-Based Rounds are an adaptable effective model of bedside education within critical care. In our setting, staff perceived that this model facilitated the application of evidence in clinical practice and positively influenced feelings of confidence. Importantly, this education strategy empowered nurses to explore and identify improvements locally to patient care. Whilst this model offers a practical education approach to address some of the key critical care workforce issues, such as an expanding curriculum and loss of senior staff, it could also be widely adopted to other clinical areas. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: Evidence-Based Rounds are perceived by staff as a successful bedside education model that facilitates nurses to apply evidence in practice. It is feasible that this strategy is a potentially sustainable, low-cost model for continuing professional development centred around routine clinical work. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.