Location
Virtual
Start Date
1-3-2024 1:40 PM
End Date
1-3-2024 1:55 PM
Keywords:
washington; spokane
Description
Background: Hospitals are increasingly hiring nurse scientists, motivated in part by nursing excellence designations such as Magnet. Magnet designation requires at least three, nurse-led, Institutional Review Board-approved research studies to be conducted in the hospital every four years and for nurses to be actively implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) projects using research evidence. However, clinical nurses often lack the specialized knowledge and training necessary to engage in well-designed research or EBP. Nurse scientists are PhD-prepared individuals with expertise to mentor clinical nurses to navigate the rigor and complexity of creating, implementing, analyzing, and disseminating research and EBP projects. Yet, due to the niche nature of the role, it is unclear how to best quantify nurse scientists’ consultations supporting nurses to conduct research and EBP. An innovative approach to quantify the day-to-day operations of one nurse scientist responsible for 24 hospitals within a 52-hospital health system was created and tested.
Purpose: To describe an innovative strategy to quantify acute care nurse scientist research and EBP consultations.
Methods: An electronic “Research and EBP Consultation Tracking Form” was created using Research and Data Capture (REDCAP). Each day, the nurse scientist would enter unique consultations characterizing consultation date, project type (EBP versus research), project title, project lead contact, and time spent on the consult (in minutes). One nurse scientist with four years of experience in the role piloted use of the tracking form from April 10, 2023, to September 29, 2023. Data entries were reviewed descriptively.
Results: During the pilot period, the nurse scientist reported 856 hours worked and 361 hours providing consultations (42% of time). A total of 332 consultations were entered (n=177 research and n=155 EBP). In all, 72 unique projects were described including 65 unique project leads. Per consultation, the nurse reported spending more time supporting research versus EBP (m=76.2 minutes versus m=52.2 minutes). During the 5-month pilot, project consultation was documented during all phases of clinical inquiry, from protocol development and receiving IRB approval, to analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of findings through presentations at peer-reviewed conferences and healthcare journal publications. The nurse scientist reported ease of using the tracking form, although issues were identified such as: time-intensive process documenting all consultations each day, inconsistency with reporting consultations, frequent “back-charting”, and potential for under-reporting.
Conclusion: Having a structured system in place to document the landscape of nurse scientist work can help better articulate the impact and functions of this unique nursing position. Further work is needed to test the sustainability and utility of data generated using a “Research and EBP Consultation Tracking Form”.
Implications for Practice: Describing the scope of work of a nurse scientist in the hospital setting is a first step to highlighting the need and demand for the specialized research and EBP knowledge and mentorship the nurse scientist can offer, particularly in hospitals aspiring to receive or maintain Magnet designation. Health systems interested in engaging nurses in research and EBP should invest in a nurse scientist position to facilitate clinical nurse-led, high-impact, healthcare-focused research and EBP.
Recommended Citation
Rangel, Teresa, "Painting a landscape of acute care nurse scientist work" (2024). Providence Nursing Research Conference 2023 – Present. 26.
https://digitalcommons.providence.org/prov_rn_conf_annual/2024/podiums/26
Specialty
Critical Care Medicine
Specialty
Nursing
Included in
Painting a landscape of acute care nurse scientist work
Virtual
Background: Hospitals are increasingly hiring nurse scientists, motivated in part by nursing excellence designations such as Magnet. Magnet designation requires at least three, nurse-led, Institutional Review Board-approved research studies to be conducted in the hospital every four years and for nurses to be actively implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) projects using research evidence. However, clinical nurses often lack the specialized knowledge and training necessary to engage in well-designed research or EBP. Nurse scientists are PhD-prepared individuals with expertise to mentor clinical nurses to navigate the rigor and complexity of creating, implementing, analyzing, and disseminating research and EBP projects. Yet, due to the niche nature of the role, it is unclear how to best quantify nurse scientists’ consultations supporting nurses to conduct research and EBP. An innovative approach to quantify the day-to-day operations of one nurse scientist responsible for 24 hospitals within a 52-hospital health system was created and tested.
Purpose: To describe an innovative strategy to quantify acute care nurse scientist research and EBP consultations.
Methods: An electronic “Research and EBP Consultation Tracking Form” was created using Research and Data Capture (REDCAP). Each day, the nurse scientist would enter unique consultations characterizing consultation date, project type (EBP versus research), project title, project lead contact, and time spent on the consult (in minutes). One nurse scientist with four years of experience in the role piloted use of the tracking form from April 10, 2023, to September 29, 2023. Data entries were reviewed descriptively.
Results: During the pilot period, the nurse scientist reported 856 hours worked and 361 hours providing consultations (42% of time). A total of 332 consultations were entered (n=177 research and n=155 EBP). In all, 72 unique projects were described including 65 unique project leads. Per consultation, the nurse reported spending more time supporting research versus EBP (m=76.2 minutes versus m=52.2 minutes). During the 5-month pilot, project consultation was documented during all phases of clinical inquiry, from protocol development and receiving IRB approval, to analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of findings through presentations at peer-reviewed conferences and healthcare journal publications. The nurse scientist reported ease of using the tracking form, although issues were identified such as: time-intensive process documenting all consultations each day, inconsistency with reporting consultations, frequent “back-charting”, and potential for under-reporting.
Conclusion: Having a structured system in place to document the landscape of nurse scientist work can help better articulate the impact and functions of this unique nursing position. Further work is needed to test the sustainability and utility of data generated using a “Research and EBP Consultation Tracking Form”.
Implications for Practice: Describing the scope of work of a nurse scientist in the hospital setting is a first step to highlighting the need and demand for the specialized research and EBP knowledge and mentorship the nurse scientist can offer, particularly in hospitals aspiring to receive or maintain Magnet designation. Health systems interested in engaging nurses in research and EBP should invest in a nurse scientist position to facilitate clinical nurse-led, high-impact, healthcare-focused research and EBP.
Comments
References:
Albert, N. (Ed.). (2015). Building and sustaining a hospital-based nursing research program. Springer Publishing Company.
Allen, D. H., Arthur, E. K., Blazey, M., Brassil, K., Cahill, J. E., Cooley, M. E., ... & Yoder, L. H. (2023). A scoping review on the nurse scientist role within healthcare systems. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 20(1), 47-55.
Pintz, C., Zhou, Q. P., McLaughlin, M. K., Kelly, K. P., & Guzzetta, C. E. (2018). National study of nursing research characteristics at Magnet®-designated hospitals. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 48(5), 247-258.