Categories
Uncategorized

A rapid evidence response program: An integrated KT intervention to inform standards of care

Background:

There is a lack of evidence to guide clinical practice in pediatric rehabilitation that is optimally packaged, easily accessible, and relevant to childhood disability. Front–line clinicians also express a lack of confidence and time in finding, reviewing and synthesizing potentially relevant research. KT experts and clinicians need to partner to create evidence-informed products to inform standards of care that address complex clinical questions and support decision making.

Methods:

A rapid response program was developed to create evidence-informed KT products to facilitate standard of care development and decision-making. The program is based on the ‘knowledge funnel’ component of the knowledge to action cycle, rapid review principles, and an integrated KT approach. This funnel starts with identifying a problem, moving to knowledge inquiry, knowledge synthesis and finally KT product creation to present evidence in a concise and understandable format that is tailored to meet the needs of knowledge users (Graham et al., 2006). Rapid reviews are a type of knowledge synthesis in which the systematic review process is simplified to enhance timeliness of evidence production (Tricco et al., 2015). The program uses an integrated KT approach to bring together the diverse and complimentary expertise within our hospital. This includes Collaborative Practice (clinical decision makers) Evidence to Care (knowledge translation team) and the Clinical Working Group (front-line clinicians).

Results:

This process-oriented program includes the following steps: (i) prioritize a clinical topic based on selection criteria, (ii) establish an interprofessional working group, (iii) develop a preliminary review question, (iv) identify relevant clinical practice guidelines and reviews, (v) specify the review question using the PICO or PCC method, (vi) create the review protocol, (vii) synthesize the evidence. Partnering with Collaborative Practice and the Clinical Working Group was crucial as their perspectives reflect high priority and need-based topics as well as practice-informed knowledge. Their perspectives were captured through their participation in selecting and refining the review topic, outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria, and consulting on the interpretation of review findings. This program has supported the development of four standards of care: Managing stoma complications, serial casting, bowel management, and infant care.

Conclusions:

A rapid response program informed by knowledge translation activities and principles offers a practical solution for tackling complex practice-based questions. The program enables the development of robust, timely and evidence-informed KT products for clinicians. In sharing these processes, the hope is that other organizations can adopt/adapt them to inform policy development.

Poster

2 replies on “A rapid evidence response program: An integrated KT intervention to inform standards of care”

Hello Dawn,

Thank you for your question. We embed usability and implementation-oriented questions at several different time points in the document creation process. This looks different for each initiative, depending on the nature of the practice question. For example, we have had interprofessional stakeholder meetings during evidence synthesis where we would ask questions such as ‘What will make this information actionable?’; ‘Is this step in the document clear on how care should be delivered, by whom, and when?’; ‘How does this practice recommendation fit with current structures, processes and resources?’. For one of our broader questions, considering use of the document in practice as it was being developed looked like asking the clinical working group ‘How can we organize the information in a way that is useful for you, what is a helpful way to group the information?’; ‘What type of information matters most?’.

Once the first draft of the document is created we seek out feedback on clarity, organization, client-centred language, and utility and make sure there are is opportunity for iteration.

We also invest time in question generation to identify what type of information is needed to influence practice.

I hope this answers your question. I’m happy to connect further.

Leave a Reply to Dawn Stacey Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *