Using Multi-Site Research Results to Impact Local Pediatric Pain Evidence-Based Practice: Innovations and Outcomes.
Nicole L Bohr, Cynthia M LaFond, Mary Cazzell and 5 others
PMID 40169357WHAT IT FOUND
Sharing local pain data with PICU sites led most to change practice, like fixing assessment scales.
Nurses saw their own documentation gaps. This was a survey of research teams, not a test of whether the new practices improved patient outcomes.
Key findings
01Most site leads used local results to inform practice changes, averaging 2.8 changes per site, such as revising pain documentation or assessment scales.
02During initial feedback, seven sites identified gaps in pain documentation and assessment, including using inappropriate behavioral scales for immobile patients.
03Five of the seven surveyed sites reported that receiving local data increased their awareness of the need for improvement and served as a gap analysis.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample is very small: 12 sites in one study, with only 7 responding to the four-year survey (58% response rate). The study relies on self-reported behavior by site leads, who may have provided socially desirable answers about the value of the data they received. There is no patient outcome data. The study reports that hospitals changed policies and scales, but does not measure if these changes reduced patient pain or improved recovery. The four-year gap between data receipt and the survey may have resulted in inaccurate recall of how the data was used. Most participating hospitals were already ANCC Magnet designated or pursuing it, which may mean they were more motivated to use research for quality improvement than typical hospitals.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the reported practice changes as evidence that the new pain assessment tools improved patient outcomes. The study measured whether hospitals changed their policies and documentation after receiving data, but it did not track patient pain scores or recovery metrics to verify if those changes were clinically effective.