Evidence-based Practice and Decision-making (5 cr)
Code: HCS22EB02-3001
General information
Enrollment
15.06.2022 - 23.10.2022
Timing
24.10.2022 - 18.12.2022
Number of ECTS credits allocated
5 op
Virtual portion
3 op
Mode of delivery
40 % Contact teaching, 60 % Distance learning
Unit
Faculty of Health and Welfare
Teaching languages
- English
Degree programmes
- Degree Programme in Social Services and Health Care
Teachers
- Rika Levy-Malmberg
Teacher in charge
Rika Levy-Malmberg
Groups
-
HCS22F-ÅHealth Care and Social Services, 2022 full-time studies
-
HCS22P-ÅHealth Care and Social Services, 2022 part-time studies
Objective
The student:
- is able to apply the principles of evidence-based practice
- is able to produce portfolio evidence to underpin practice
- is able to identify and analyze problems related to social and health care practices
- is able to apply systematic method of critical thinking
- is able to apply new knowledge and insight grated from evidence-based practice
- is able to demonstrate the ability to use evidence while analyzing new situation (application of evidence)
Content
Critical thinking theories
Decision-making process
Types of evidence
Critical approach to searching evidence form different sources
Applying evidence into change process
Location and time
autumn
Materials
Chapter 12 Evidence-Based Practice and Nursing Theory; https://slideplayer.com/slide/5670961/
WHO report- facilitating evidence: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Health-systems/nursing-and-midwifery/publications/2017/facilitating-evidence-based-practice-in-nursing-and-midwifery-in-the-who-european-region-2017
The updated Joanna Briggs Institute Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare: https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/Fulltext/2019/03000/The_updated_Joanna_Briggs_Institute_Model_of.8.aspx
Abu-Baker, N. N., AbuAlrub, S., Obeidat, R. F., & Assmairan, K. (2021). Evidence-based practice beliefs and implementations: a cross-sectional study among undergraduate nursing students. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00522-x
Chan, R., Gardner, G., Webster, J., & Geary, A. (2010). Building research capacity in the nursing workforce: the design and evaluation of the nurse researcher role. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27(4), 62–69.
Geddis, R. A., Errington, L., Abley, C., Wassall, R., Exley, C., & Thomson, R. (2021). Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Health Expectations, 24(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13167
Hoffmann, T., Gibson, E., Barnett, C., & Maher, C. (2021). Shared decision making in Australian physiotherapy practice: A survey of knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use. PLoS ONE, 16(5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251347
Parvan, K., Hosseini, F. A., Jasemi, M., & Thomson, B. (2021). Attitude of nursing students following the implementation of comprehensive computer-based nursing process in medical surgical internship: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making, 21(1), 1–12.
Tagney, J., & Haines, C. (2009). Using evidence-based practice to address gaps in nursing knowledge. British Journal of Nursing, 18(8), 484–489. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2009.18.8.41811
critical thinking, critical reasoning, and clinical judgment?
http://www.elsevieradvantage.com/samplechapters/9781437727760/9781437727760.pdf
Clinical judgment- en essential tool in the nursing process
http://www.infiressources.ca/fer/Depotdocument_anglais/Clinical_Judgement%E2%80%93An_Essential_Tool_in_the_Nursing_Profession.p
Teaching methods
lectures, group discussion and seminar
Exam schedules
seminar and assignment
Student workload
1 ECTS=27 hours
Evaluation scale
H-5
Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)
Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student has a superficial knowledge of the subject (by heart reading)
Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions and his/hers knowledge of the other students' work is inadequate. The student shows limited substance knowledge, it can be essential. The student shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has followed the instructions for assignment. She/he have a deficient knowledge of the substance also touching the essential
Assessment criteria, good (3)
Criteria for evaluation of the written exam
The student can explain the literature, reflect and motivate his/her views
Assessment criteria for assignment:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows insufficient knowledge about the other students' assignments. The student has mastered the substance of his work, but the application is limited
Assessment criteria, excellent (5)
Criteria for evaluation of the written exam:
The student shows in her/his answer an in-depth knowledge and maturity beyond the traditional
Criteria for evaluation of assignment individually or in groups:
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and can lead a discussion at the possible seminar. The assignment and the possible role as an opponent show something out of the ordinary (technical execution, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods)
The student has followed the instructions for the assignment and shows that she/he has mastered the substance. She/he have read the other participants' assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the possible seminar
Qualifications
No prerequisites