Mapping Implementation Strategies and Outcomes When Using Evidence Based Practice Implementation Models in Nursing Settings: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) should be implemented in clinical settings and practiced by registered nurses as it improves healthcare quality, safety, costs, and patient outcomes. For this to occur, nurses need to be skilled and acculturated. An EBP culture needs to be developed and sustained, both in initial academic programs and in clinical settings. Implementation models already exist and are being used, but outcomes are not consistently measured.

Aims: The aim of this scoping review was to gather and map the use of EBP implementation models as well as their implementation strategies and outcomes.

Method: The methodology for the JBI Scoping Reviews was applied. The databases queried were PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, AMED, BNI, HMIC, PsycInfo. Inclusion criteria were as follows: Any primary study that describes the implementation of EBP in nursing, clinical, or academic settings. Studies using the following EBP implementation models were included: the ARCC Model, ARCC-E Model, IOWA Model, Stetler Model, Johns Hopkins Nursing EBP Model, ACE Star Model as well as PARIHS and i-PARIHS. They must have used Proctor's taxonomy for implementation outcomes as well as described implementation strategies according to the ERIC classification. Data extraction was performed by four independent reviewers in February 2024. There was no language or date limitation. Three independent reviewers performed an initial selection on titles and abstracts. Reading of the full texts was carried out by two independent reviewers using the JBI SUMARI.

Results: A total of 2244 articles were retrieved. After removing duplicates and applying the inclusion criteria, 26 articles were reviewed, and data extracted. The most used implementation model was the PARiHS or i-PARiHS model followed by the IOWA model, the ARCC model combined with the JHNEBP model and the Stetler model. Nearly all studies used the implementation strategy domain "Use evaluative and iterative strategies" of ERIC classification. Overall, the selected studies used between 1 and 2 outcomes from Proctor's eight available.

Linking evidence to action: The underuse of existing taxonomies (Proctor, ERIC) prevents an exhaustive mapping of the use of implementation models. The vocabulary used is too vague, and the implementation strategies are sometimes poorly described. An effort needs to be made to report on all work done to transfer the results to other settings and thus improve health care practices.

Keywords: academic settings; clinical settings; evidence‐based‐practice; implementation outcomes; implementation strategy; nurses.

FIGURE 1

Flowchart.