Discussion

  

This week builds on that foundational awareness with a focus on the application of evidence-based practice models as a strategy to improve patient safety and other quality dimensions. In this Discussion, consider how these strategies can sustain practice changes.

To prepare:

Read: Newhouse, R.P. (2007) Diffusing confusion among evidence-based practice, quality improvement and research. JONA 37,432-535 (see attached pdf)

Read: Mazurek Melynk B., Gallagher-Ford, L., English Long, L., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014) The establishment of Evidence-Based practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in real world clinical settings: proficiencies to improve healthcare quality, reliability, patient outcomes, and costs. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 11(1),5-15. (see attached pdf)

We all agree that research is the highest form of reliable evidence, when implemented in an organization that provides the basis for an evidence based practice. FIND a research study published in a peer reviewed journal related to a clinical practice problem that is of interest to you, and which would ultimately contribute to an evidence based practice.

The discussion assignment:

ANSWER the following discussion questions. Include the research study in your post (attach it to the post and post it in doc sharing). See page 11 #15 in Mazurek Melynk, Gallagher Ford, English Long and Fineout-Overholt. In this assignment, you are being asked to critically appraise a single research study for its relevance to a QI practice problem.

Discussion questions:

1) What was the purpose of the research?

2) Identify the independent and dependent variables in the study.

3) Briefly describe the research design, data collection method(s), and instruments used to measure the variables under study.

4) Briefly summarize study findings, conclusions and recommendations. Do you agree with these?

5) As a DNP prepared nurse, would you recommend a change in nursing practice based on the study? Defend and/or justify your decision based on research evaluation principles. In other words, does the evidence generated by this research article signify a need to change nursing practice? If not, why not; if so, why?

Post by tomorrow Wednesday January 31, 2018 by 10 pm America New/York time

Required Readings

Joshi, M.S., Ransom, E.R., Nash, D.B., & Ransom, S.B., (Eds.). (2014). The Healthcare Quality Book, 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.

• Chapter 14: “Leadership      for Quality”
• Chapter 16: “Implementing Quality as the Core      Organizational Strategy”

Baur, C. (2011). Calling the nation to act: Implementing the national action plan to improve health literacy. Nursing Outlook, 59(2), 63–69.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

This article describes the aspects of the National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy. It starts by covering the background and objectives of the plan and then moves to its vision and goals.

Ferrara, L. R. (2010). Integrating evidence-based practice with educational theory in clinical practice for nurse practitioners: Bridging the theory practice gap. Research & Theory for Nursing Practice, 24(4), 213–216.

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

The author of this article discusses using constructivist theory to teach nurse practitioner students to use evidenced-based practice. She focuses on introducing the student’s theoretical knowledge into real-life practice.

Grant, B., Colello, S., Riehle, M., & Dende, D. (2010). An evaluation of the nursing practice environment and successful change management using the new generation Magnet Model. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(3), 326–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01076.x

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Health care organizations have implemented the Magnet Model as a way to successfully implement practice change. This article examines the aspects of this process.

Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Bonin, J.-P., Lesage, A., Farand, L., Lavigne, G. L., & Trudel, J. (2011). Implementation of diagnosis-related mental health problems: Impact on health care providers. Health Care Manager, 30(1), 30(1): 4-14 (50 ref). doi:10.1097/HCM.0b013e3182078a95

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

The study within this article analyzes two cases related to the implementation of diagnosis-related mental health programs.

Mark, D. D., Latimer, R. W., & Hardy, M. D. (2010). “Stars” aligned for evidence-based practice: a TriService initiative in the Pacific. Nursing Research, 59(1), S48–S57. doi:10.1097/01.NNR.0000313506.22722.53

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

Nurses from a military health care system in Hawaii established ways to use and evaluate evidence-based practices. This article details the process and results of this collaborative effort between the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

Scobbie, L., Dixon, D., & Wyke, S. (2011). Goal setting and action planning in the rehabilitation setting: Development of a theoretically informed practice framework. Clinical Rehabilitation, 25(5), 468–482. doi:10.1177/0269215510389198

Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.

In order to develop a theory-based framework for setting goals, the authors of this article use casual modeling to determine effective patient outcomes. They identify four major components of the framework that can be used to set effective goals.

Optional Resources

Schifalacqua, M. M., Mamula, J., & Mason, A. R. (2011). Return on investment imperative: the cost of care calculator for an evidence-based practice program. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 15–20. 

Copyright @ Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

JONA
Volume 37, Number 10, pp 432-435
Copyright B 2007 Wolters Kluwer Health |
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Diffusing Confusion
Among Evidence-Based
Practice, Quality Improvement,
and Research
Robin Purdy Newhouse, PhD, RN, CNA, CNOR

In this department, hot topics in
nursing outcomes, research, and
evidence-based practice relevant
to the nurse administrator are
highlighted. The goal is to dis-
cuss the practical implications for
nurse leaders in diverse health-
care settings. Content includes
evidence-based projects and deci-
sion making, locating measurement
tools for quality improvement
and safety projects, using outcome
measures to evaluate quality, prac-
tice implications of administrative
research, and exemplars of proj-
ects that demonstrate innova-
tive approaches to organizational
problems.

In a recent evidence-based practice
(EBP) workshop, a nurse executive
asked: ‘‘What is the difference
between EBP and quality improve-
ment (QI) and benchmarking?’’ In
a different workshop, another
asked: ‘‘Do I need an institutional

review board approval for my
EBP project?’’ It becomes confus-
ing when organizational EBP, QI,
and research activities are all re-
ferred to as EBP. The issue is that
these activities often overlap.
This column assesses the unique
and overlapping relationships
among EBP, QI, and research. Defi-
nitions are provided in Figure 1.
Using an organizational problem
of increased pressure ulcer rates,
examples of each approach are
provided in Figure 2.

Research
Research is a systematic investiga-
tion, including research develop-
ment, testing, and evaluation
designed to develop or contribute
to generalizable knowledge.1 Be-
cause nursing research is under-
developed in a number of areas,
scientific evidence (research) is not
available to inform practice when
a problem emerges or questions
are raised about nursing processes
included in organizational policies.

The research process includes
identification of the problem,
selection of a conceptual frame-
work or theoretical model that
describes the relationships be-
tween study variables, generation

of hypotheses or research ques-
tions, and a plan for the study
design and method. The design
and method are based on the
state of knowledge of the prob-
lem and the gap in the evidence.

The design frames the appro-
priate research approach (experi-
mental, quasi-experimental, or
nonexperimental). The sample
consists of the number and type
of subjects needed to identify a
statistically significant difference
if one exists. The method includes
appropriate controls, including mea-
sures or instruments with adequate
estimates of reliability and valid-
ity. Standard research procedures
are established that include a plan
for interventions, measurement,
data collection, and statistical
analysis. Institutional review
board approval is obtained before
implementation of the research
protocol.

The design and methods of
research seek to control as many
variables as possible so that a link
is established between the inter-
vention (or concept of interest)
and effect (or outcome). Using a
well-planned and implemented
research approach to solve a clini-
cal, administrative, or education

432 JONA � Vol. 37, No. 10 � October 2007

Evidence and the
Executive

Author Affiliation: Associate Profes-
sor and Assistant Dean, Doctor of Nurs-
ing Practice, University of Maryland,
School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland.

Correspondence: University of Mary-
land, School of Nursing, 655 W. Lombard
Street, Room 516B, Baltimore, MD 21201-
1579 (newhouse@son.umaryland.edu).

Copyright @ Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

problem informs decisions in
healthcare organizations, extend-
ing beyond lessons learned in
one organization, to generalizable
knowledge that can be applied in
similar settings.

Quality Improvement

Quality improvement is a process
by which individuals work to-
gether to improve systems and
processes with the intention to
improve outcomes.2 An alterna-
tive definition is that QI is a data-
driven systematic approach to
improving care locally.3 The dis-
tinction between research and QI
has been recently reviewed, defined,
and debated.3-5

One familiar framework to
guide the QI process is plan-do-
study-act.6 Examples of ap-
proaches to data presentation
from QI efforts include control,
radar, Pareto charts, and cause-
and-effect diagrams.7 Although
approaches to QI have undergone
an evolution to improve the sys-

tematic approach, publications of
results are usually limited to les-
sons learned, instead of general-
izable results. In addition, there
has been an increase in investiga-
tors who conduct health services
research with their research activi-
ties focused on QI interventions.
These investigators intend to gen-
eralize results and approach the
organizational improvement inter-
vention as a research study.

Evidence-Based Practice

An often-cited landmark defini-
tion of EBP is: ‘‘Evidence-based
medicine is the conscientious,
explicit, and judicious use of
current best evidence in making
decisions about the care of indi-
vidual patients. The practice of
evidence-based medicine means
integrating individual clinical
expertise with the best available
external clinical evidence from
systematic research.’’8(p71)

This definition is appropriate
for nursing research utilization,

but insufficient for EBP because
the best evidence available to
address nursing problems is often
not research. In addition, nursing
practice is nested within organi-
zations, and appropriate organi-
zational infrastructure fosters
system and individual uptake
and use of evidence. The defini-
tion of EBP can be expanded to
the following: EBP is a problem-
solving approach to clinical deci-
sion making in a healthcare
organization that integrates the
best available scientific evidence
with the best available experien-
tial (patient and practitioner)
evidence, considers internal and
external influences on practice,
and encourages critical thinking
in the judicious application of
such evidence to care of the
individual patient, patient popu-
lation, or system.9 Note that this
approach uses the best available
evidence, not one source of evi-
dence that supports current prac-
tice. A rigorous search strategy is
used, followed by retrieval and
review of evidence that includes
grading the strength and quality,
and then applying the results
through implementation and
evaluation of the recommenda-
tions. This definition includes the
organization’s experience.

Experiential evidence ex-
tends beyond the individual pro-
vider or patient, to activities
such as QI, benchmarking, or
organizational or program out-
come monitoring. Rycroft-Malone
et al10 call this organizational
evidence ‘‘local context’’ and
suggest that far more work is
needed to understand how this
type of evidence is collected and
incorporated with other types
of evidence to inform healthcare
decisions.

Figure 1. Definitions.

JONA � Vol. 37, No. 10 � October 2007 433

Evidence and the Executive

Copyright @ Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

The Overlapping Relationships

Research and QI (as a form of
experiential evidence) both in-
form EBP. Research provides a
higher level of evidence than QI
and is the major source of evi-
dence in the medical discipline.
Quality improvement provides
real-life experience and descrip-
tive data within the context of
the organization, making the
rapid cycle approach and evalua-
tion of outcomes very actionable.

However, there are 2 major
problems with using QI data as a
source of evidence.11 First, usu-
ally, the QI process does not meet
fundamental standards for the
conduct or publication of research.

Second, the interventions used in
QI processes often are not based
on theory that predicts their
success. These deficiencies in the
QI process produce results that
are not transferable to other
organizations (generalizable) and
do not measure variables or data
that are needed to explain the
results, designs that lack the ability
to draw causal inferences, and a
number of additional weaknesses
(threats to internal validity).

Research and EBP processes
both inform QI. When develop-
ing strategies to improve outcomes
in QI initiatives, research evidence
is reviewed, and an intervention or
interventions are selected to im-

prove the likelihood of success
for the change. Individual research
studies may be used to inform QI
action, as well as the recommen-
dations from an EBP evidence
review. The evidence review may
contain scientific (such as experi-
mental studies) or experiential
(such as consensus or expert opin-
ion) sources. Scientific evidence
(research) provides a higher level
of generalizability or application
to similar settings than experien-
tial evidence.

Evidence-based practice and
QI both inform opportunities
for research. As the team evalu-
ates the QI outcomes and les-
sons learned in their rapid cycle

Figure 2. Examples of research, QI, and EBP.

434 JONA � Vol. 37, No. 10 � October 2007

Evidence and the Executive

Copyright @ Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

improvements, they may iden-
tify descriptive improvements in
areas where there are gaps in
the evidence to support the need
for research to test a new inter-
vention. Likewise, during the
evidence review and synthesis
phase of the EBP process, gaps
in knowledge are identified.
These gaps provide the opportu-
nity to generate research ques-
tions or hypothesis and design a
research study to measure the
association or differences between
variables.

Conclusion
Major forces drive the need for
nurses to demonstrate basic and
advanced competency in EBP,
QI, and research. These forces
include disparities and deficits in
quality of care for patients, in-
creasing evidence to support the
effectiveness of interventions,
national efforts to standardize
performance measures, and a
focus on improving the health-
care work environments.

Efforts to improve work
environments necessitate that we
apply evidence to healthcare de-
livery, align payment policies
with QI, and prepare the work-
force.12 Applying evidence to
practice requires that we apply
scientific knowledge systemati-
cally, building infrastructure to
support decision making, setting
goals for improvement, and de-
veloping measures to assess qual-
ity.12 Preparing the workforce
involves developing competencies
in QI, EBP, informatics, patient-

centered care, and interdisciplinary
collaboration.13

To advance quality, an inter-
disciplinary common vision, lan-
guage, and processes are required.
Research, QI, and EBP are tools
to identify and describe problems,
explain relationships between fac-
tors of interest, and implement
interventions or strategies with a
clear rationale. Nurse executives
have an important role in diffus-
ing the confusion between EBP,
QI, and research; building collabo-
rative relationships; and establish-
ing organizational infrastructure to
support continued improvements
in healthcare quality.14,15 A precur-
sor to leading is understanding the
distinct differences, yet overlap-
ping associations, between these
3 important activities.

REFERENCES

1. Department of Health and Human
Services. Code of Federal Regula-
tions. Title 45. Public Welfare. Part
46: Protection of Human Subjects
(45 CFR 46.102(d)). Washington,
DC: Department of Health and

Human Services;

2002.

2. Committee on Assessing the System
for Protecting Human Research Par-

ticipants. Responsible Research: A
Systems Approach to Protecting
Research Participants. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press;

2002.

3. Baily MA, Bottrell M, Lynn J,

Jennings B. The Ethics of Using QI
Methods to Improve Health Care
Quality and Safety: A Hastings Cen-
ter Special Report. Garrison, NY:
The Hastings Center; 2006.

4. Newhouse RP, Pettit JC, Poe S,

Rocco L. The slippery slope: differen-

tiating between quality improvement

and research. J Nurs Adm. 2006;36(4):
211-219.

5. Wise LC. Ethical issues surrounding

quality improvement activities: a review.

J Nurs Adm. 2007;37(6):272-278.
6. Langley GJ, Nolan KM, Nolan TW,

Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improve-
ment Guide: A Practical Approach to
EnhancingOrganizationalPerformance.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1996.

7. Brassard M, Ritter D. The Memory
Jogger: A Pocket Guide of Tools for
Continuous Improvement and Effec-
tive Planning. Salem, NH: GOAL/
QPC; 1994.

8. Sackett KL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA,

Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence
based medicine: what it is and what it

isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71-72.
9. Newhouse R, Dearholt S, Poe S,

Pugh LC, White K. The Johns Hopkins
Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Model. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins Uni-

versity School of Nursing; 2005.
10. Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Titchen A,

Harvey G, Kitson A, McCormack B.

What counts as evidence in evidence-
based practice? J Adv Nurs. 2004;
47(1):81-90.

11. Shojania KG, Grimshaw JM. Evidence-

based quality improvement: the state of
the science. Health Aff (Millwood).
2005;24(1):138-150.

12. Committee on Quality of Health

Care in America, Institute of Medi-
cine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A
New Health System for the 21st
Century. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press; 2001.

13. Committee on the Health Professions

Education Summit Board on Health

Care Services. In: Greiner AC, Knebel E,
eds. Health Professions Education: A
Bridge to Quality. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press; 2003.

14. American Nurses Association. Scope
and Standards for Nurse Administra-
tors, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Nurse-
books; 2004.

15. American Nurses Association. Nurs-
ing: Scope and Standards of Practice.
Washington, DC: American Nurses

Association; 2004.

JONA � Vol. 37, No. 10 � October 2007 435

Evidence and the Executive

Original Article

The Establishment of Evidence-Based
Practice Competencies for Practicing
Registered Nurses and Advanced Practice
Nurses in Real-World Clinical Settings:
Proficiencies to Improve Healthcare Quality,
Reliability, Patient Outcomes, and Costs
Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk, RN, PhD, CPNP/PMHNP, FNAP, FAANP, FAAN •
Lynn Gallagher-Ford, RN, PhD, DPFNAP, NE-BC • Lisa English Long, RN, MSN, CNS •
Ellen Fineout-Overholt, RN, PhD, FAAN

Keywords

evidence-based
practice,

competencies,
healthcare quality

ABSTRACT
Background: Although it is widely known that evidence-based practice (EBP) improves healthcare
quality, reliability, and patient outcomes as well as reduces variations in care and costs, it is still
not the standard of care delivered by practicing clinicians across the globe. Adoption of specific
EBP competencies for nurses and advanced practice nurses (APNs) who practice in real-world
healthcare settings can assist institutions in achieving high-value, low-cost evidence-based health
care.

Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a set of clear EBP competencies for both practicing
registered nurses and APNs in clinical settings that can be used by healthcare institutions in their
quest to achieve high performing systems that consistently implement and sustain EBP.

Methods: Seven national EBP leaders developed an initial set of competencies for practicing
registered nurses and APNs through a consensus building process. Next, a Delphi survey was
conducted with 80 EBP mentors across the United States to determine consensus and clarity
around the competencies.

Findings: Two rounds of the Delphi survey resulted in total consensus by the EBP mentors,
resulting in a final set of 13 competencies for practicing registered nurses and 11 additional
competencies for APNs.

Linking Evidence to Action: Incorporation of these competencies into healthcare system ex-
pectations, orientations, job descriptions, performance appraisals, and clinical ladder promotio

n

processes could drive higher quality, reliability, and consistency of healthcare as well as reduce
costs. Research is now needed to develop valid and reliable tools for assessing these competen-
cies as well as linking them to clinician and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a life-long problem-solving
approach to the delivery of health care that integrates the best
evidence from well-designed studies (i.e., external evidence)
and integrates it with a patient’s preferences and values
and a clinician’s expertise, which includes internal evidence
gathered from patient data. When EBP is delivered in a context
of caring and a culture as well as an ecosystem or environment
that supports it, the best clinical decisions are made that

yield positive patient outcomes (see Figure 1; Melnyk &
Fineout-Overholt, 2011).

Research supports that EBP promotes high-value health
care, including enhancing the quality and reliability of health
care, improving health outcomes, and reducing variations in
care and costs (McGinty & Anderson, 2008; Melnyk, Fineout-
Overholt, Gallagher-Ford, & Kaplan, 2012; Pravikoff, Pierce, &
Tanner, 2005). Even with its tremendous benefits, EBP is not
the standard of care that is practiced consistently by clinicians
throughout the United States and globe (Fink, Thompson, &

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15. 5
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

EBP Competencies for Practice

Figure 1. The merging of science and art: EBP within a context of caring and an EBP culture and environment
results in the highest quality of healthcare and patient outcomes. Reprinted from Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-
Overholt, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare. A guide to best practice. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Reprinted with permission.

Bonnes, 2005; Melnyk, Grossman, et al., 2012). Tremendously
long lag times continue to exist between the generation of re-
search findings and their implementation in real-world clinical
settings to improve care and outcomes due to multiple barri-
ers, including: (a) misperceptions by clinicians that it takes
too much time, (b) inadequate EBP knowledge and skills, (c)
academic programs that continue to teach the rigorous pro-
cess of how to conduct research instead of an evidence-based
approach to care, (d) organizational cultures that do not sup-
port it, (e) lack of EBP mentors and appropriate resources, and
(f) resistance by colleagues, managers or leaders, and physi-
cians (Ely, Osheroff, Chambliss, Ebell, & Rosenbaum, 2005;
Estabrooks, O’Leary, Ricker, & Humphrey, 2003; Jennings &
Loan, 2001; Melnyk, Fineout-Overholt, Feinstein, et al., 2004;
Melnyk, Fineout-Overholt, et al., 2012; Titler, 2009).

The Seven-Step EBP Process and Facilitating
Factors
The seven steps of EBP start with cultivating a spirit of inquiry
and an EBP culture and environment as without these ele-
ments, clinicians will not routinely ask clinical questions about
their practices (see Table 1). After a clinician asks a clinical
question and searches for the best evidence, critical appraisal
of the evidence for validity, reliability, and applicability to prac-
tice is essential for integrating that evidence with a clinician’s
expertise and patient preferences to determine whether a cur-
rent practice should be changed. Once a practice change is
made based on this process, evaluating the outcomes of that

Table 1. The Seven Steps of Evidence-Based Practice

Step 0: Cultivate a spirit of inquiry along with an EBP culture
and environment

Step 1: Ask the PICO(T) question

Step 2: Search for the best evidence

Step 3: Critically appraise the evidence

Step 4: Integrate the evidence with clinical expertise and
patient preferences to make the best clinical decision

Step 5: Evaluate the outcome(s) of the EBP practice change

Step 6: Disseminate the outcome(s) (Melnyk &
Fineout-Overholt, 2011)

change is imperative to determine its impact. Finally, dissemi-
nation of the process and outcomes of the EBP change is key so
that others may learn of practices that produce the best results.

The systematic seven-step process of EBP provides a plat-
form for facilitating the best clinical decisions and ensuring the
best patient outcomes. However, consistent implementation of
the EBP process and use of evidence by practicing clinicians
is challenging. Typical barriers to EBP cited by clinicians in-
clude: time limitations, an organizational culture and philoso-
phy of “that is the way we have always done it here,” inadequate

6 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15.
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

Original Article
EBP knowledge or education, lack of access to databases that
enable searching for best evidence, manager and leader resis-
tance, heavy workloads, resistance from nursing and physician
colleagues, uncertainty about where to look for information
and how to critically appraise evidence, and limited access to
resources that facilitate EBP (Gerrish & Clayton, 2004; Mel-
nyk, Fineout-Overholt, et al., 2012; Pravikoff, Pierce, & Tanner,
2005; Restas, 2000; Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004).

There are also factors that facilitate EBP, including: beliefs
in the value of EBP and the ability to implement it, EBP men-
tors who work with direct care clinicians to implement best
practices, supportive EBP contexts or environments and cul-
tures, administrative support, and assistance by librarians from
multifaceted education programs (Melnyk et al., 2004; Mel-
nyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2011; Melnyk, Fineout-Overholt, &
Mays, 2008; Newhouse, Dearholt, Poe, Pugh, & White, 2007;
Rycroft-Malone, 2004). The concept of healthcare context (i.e.,
the environment or setting in which people receive health-
care services), specifically organizational context, is becoming
an increasingly important factor in the implementation of ev-
idence at the point of care (Estabrooks, Squires, Cummings,
Birdsell, & Norton, 2009; Rycroft-Malone, 2004). Strategies
to enhance system-wide implementation and sustainability of
evidence-based care need to be multipronged and target: (a)
the enhancement of individual clinician and healthcare leader
EBP knowledge and skills; (b) cultivation of a context and cul-
ture that supports EBP, including the availability of resources
and EBP mentors; (c) development of healthcare leaders who
can spearhead teams that create an exciting vision, mission,
and strategic goals for system-wide implementation of EBP;
(d) sufficient time, resources, mentors, and tools for clinicians
to engage in EBP; (e) clear expectations of the role of clini-
cians and advanced practice nurses (APNs) in implementing
and sustaining evidence-based care; (f) facilitator characteris-
tics and approach; and (f) a recognition or reward system for
those who are fully engaged in the effort (Dogherty, Harri-
son, Graham, Vandyk, & Keeping-Burke, 2013; Melnyk, 2007;
Melnyk, Fineout-Overholt, et al., 2012).

Competencies for Nurses
Although there is a general expectation of healthcare systems
globally for nurses to engage in EBP, much uncertainty exists
about what exactly that level of engagement encompasses. Lack
of clarity about EBP expectations and specific EBP competen-
cies that nurses and APNs who practice in real-world healthcare
settings should meet impedes institutions from attaining high-
value, low-cost evidence-based health care. The development of
EBP competencies should be aligned with the EBP process in
continual evaluation across the span of the nurses’ practice, in-
cluding technical skills in searching and appraising literature,
clinical reasoning as patient and family preferences are con-
sidered in decision making, problem-solving skills in making
recommendations for practice changes, and the ability to adapt
to changing environments (Burns, 2009).

Competence is defined as the ability to do something well;
the quality or state of being competent (Merriam Webster Dic-
tionary, 2012). Competencies are a mechanism that supports
health professionals in providing high-quality, safe care. The
construct of nursing competency “attempts to capture the myr-
iad of personal characteristics or attributes that underlie com-
petent performance of a professional person.” Competencies
are holistic entities that are carried out within clinical contexts
and are composed of multiple attributes including knowledge,
psychomotor skills, and affective skills. Dunn and colleagues
contend that competency is not a “skill or task to be done, but
characteristics required in order to act effectively in the nurs-
ing setting.” Although a particular competency “cannot exist
without scientific knowledge, clinical skills, and humanistic
values” (Dunn et al., 2000, p. 341), the actual competency tran-
scends each of the individual components. The measurement
of nurses’ competencies related to various patient care activi-
ties is a standard ongoing activity in a multitude of healthcare
organizations across the globe, however, competencies related
to the critical issue of how practicing nurses approach decision
making (e.g., whether it is evidence-based vs. tradition-based)
is limited and needs further research.

Recently, work has been conducted to establish general
competencies for nursing by the Quality and Safety Educa-
tion for Nurses (QSEN) Project, which is a global nursing
initiative whose purpose was to develop competencies that
would “prepare future nurses who would have the knowl-
edge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) necessary to continuously
improve the quality and safety of the healthcare systems
within which they work” (QSEN, 2013). This project has
developed competency recommendations that address the
following practice areas:

� Patient-centered care

� Teamwork and collaboration

� Evidence-based practice

� Quality improvement

� Safety

� Informatics

Further work in competency development has been spear-
headed by the Association of Critical Care Nurses, which de-
veloped the Synergy Model. The goal of the model was to assist
practicing nurses in decision making. An example of the model
in action would be the use of the model by charge nurses in
their decisions to match patients and nurses to achieve best
outcomes of evidence-based care processes promulgated by
the American Association of Critical Care Nurse (2013). Kring
(2008) wrote about how clinical nurse specialists, when com-
petent in EBP, can leverage their unique roles as expert prac-
titioners, researchers, consultants, educators, and leaders to
promote and support EBP in their organizations.

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15. 7
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

EBP Competencies for Practice

In addition, competencies related to the academic setting
have been developed. The National League for Nurses (NLN)
developed competencies for program levels within nursing ed-
ucation. Definitions, guides to curricular development, and
criteria for use in developing certification and continuing ed-
ucation programs is a focus for faculty and administrators in
academic settings (NLN, 2013).

Stevens and colleagues defined essential competencies for
EBP to be incorporated into nursing education programs to
serve as a helpful guide to faculty in teaching and preparing
students for EBP and to “provide a basis for professional com-
petencies in clinical practice” (Stevens, 2009, p. 8). However,
to our knowledge, there has never been a systematic research-
based process used to develop contemporary EBP competen-
cies for practicing registered professional nurses and APNs
who are delivering care in real-world clinical settings defined
by leaders and mentors responsible for facilitating and sustain-
ing evidence-based care in today’s healthcare systems.

AIM
The aim of this study was to develop a clear set of competen-
cies for both practicing registered nurses and APNs in clinical
settings. These competencies can be used by healthcare insti-
tutions in their quest to achieve high performing systems that
consistently implement and sustain evidence-based care.

METHODOLOGY
The first step in formulating the competencies involved seven
national experts from both clinical and academic settings across
the United States, who were identified and invited to participate
in developing EBP competencies through a consensus build-
ing process. These experts were chosen because they were rec-
ognized national experts in EBP, having influenced the field
or being widely published in the area. Through a consensus
building process, the EBP expert panel produced two lists of
essential EBP competencies, one set for practicing registered
nurses and one for APNs. For registered nurses, the experts
identified 12 essential EBP competencies. For APNs, there were
11 additional essential EBP competencies (23 total).

The next step in developing the competencies involved uti-
lizing the Delphi survey technique, which seeks to obtain con-
sensus on the opinions of experts through a series of struc-
tured rounds. The Delphi technique is an iterative multistage
process, designed to transform opinion into group consensus.
Studies employing the Delphi technique make use of individ-
uals who have knowledge of the topic being investigated who
are identified as “experts” selected for the purpose of applying
their knowledge to a particular issue or problem. The literature
reflects that an adequate number of rounds must be employed
in a Delphi study in order to find the balance between produc-
ing meaningful results without causing sample fatigue. Rec-
ommendations for Delphi technique suggest that two or three
rounds are preferred to achieve this balance (Hasson, Keeney,
& McKenna, 2000).

Inclusion Criteria
The expert participants for this Delphi survey of EBP compe-
tencies were individuals who attended an intensive continuing
education course or program in EBP at the first author’s aca-
demic institution within the last 7 years and who identified
themselves as EBP mentors. The EBP mentors were nurses
with in-depth knowledge and skills in EBP along with skills
in organizational and individual behavior change, who work
directly with clinicians to facilitate the rapid translation of re-
search findings into healthcare systems to improve healthcare
quality and patient outcomes. EBP mentors guide others to
consistently implement evidence-based care by educating and
role modeling the use of evidence in decision making and ad-
vancement of best practice (Melnyk, 2007).

An important design element of a Delphi study is that the
investigators must determine the definition of consensus in
relation to the study’s findings prior to the data collection
phase (Williams & Webb, 1994). Although there is no uni-
versal standard about the proportion of participant agreement
that equates with consensus, recommendations range from
51% to 80% agreement for the items on the survey (Green,
Jones, Hughes, & Williams, 2002; Sumsion, 1998). Data anal-
ysis involves management of both qualitative and quantitative
information gathered from the survey. Qualitative data from
the first round group similar items together in an attempt
to create a universal description. Subsequent rounds involve
quantitative data collected to ascertain collective opinion and
are reported using descriptive and inferential statistics.

In preparation for the Delphi survey of EBP mentors across
the United States, the study was submitted to the first author’s
institutional review board and was deemed exempt status. Prior
to the survey being disseminated electronically to the EBP men-
tors for review, the study team determined the parameters of
consensus. The EBP mentors were asked to rate each com-
petency for: (a) clarity of the written quality of the competency
and (b) how essential the competency was for practicing nurses
and APNs. The criterion for agreement set was that 70% of the
EBP mentor respondents would rate the EBP competency (e.g.,
“Questions clinical practices for the purpose of improving the
quality of care”; “Searches for external evidence to answer fo-
cused clinical questions”) between 4.5 and 5 on a five-point
Likert scale that ranged from 1 not at all to 5 very much so. The
study team also decided that competencies which EBP mentors
identified as not clearly written would be reworded taking in
consideration their feedback and resent to the participants in
a second round of the Delphi survey. The essential EBP com-
petencies were sent via e-mail to the EBP mentors for review,
rating, and feedback in July 2012.

Each EBP mentor participant was contacted through an
e-mail and invited to participate in the anonymous Delphi
survey. An introduction to the study and its parameters was
included in the introductory e-mail along with the planned
timeline for the study. The survey consisted of three sections:
(a) demographic data, (b) rating of essential EBP competencies
for practicing registered nurses, and (c) rating of essential EBP

8 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15.
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

Original Article
Table 2. Participant Characteristics (N = 80)

Mean Median Max Min

Age 52 54 70 25

Years in active clinical practice 26 29 43

1

Years as an advanced practice nurse 9 5 40 0

Number of years as an EBP mentor 3 3 15 0

competencies for practicing APNs. The survey was open for 2
weeks from the first contact date. A reminder e-mail was sent
1 week following the first contact and a second reminder was
issued a day before the survey closed. Consent was obtained
by virtue of the participant completing the survey.

The EBP mentors were asked to respond to two questions
about each of the EBP competencies on the survey using a five-
point Likert scale with 1 = Not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Somewhat,
4 = Moderately so, and 5 = Very much so. The first question
was related to how essential the competency was for nurses
and APNs and was stated as “To what extent do you believe the
above EBP competency is essential for practicing registered
professional nurses.” The second question was focused on the
clarity of the competency and was stated as, “Is the competency
statement clearly written?” If participants answered “no” in
response to whether the statement was clearly written, they
were asked how they would rewrite it. Only the EBP mentors
who identified themselves as APNs were permitted to rate the
APN competencies.

FINDINGS
Of the 315 EBP mentors originally contacted to participate in
the survey, 80 responded indicating a 25% response rate. De-
mographic data collected reflected that all 80 participants were
female with a mean age of 52 years and an average of 26 years in
clinical practice. Fifty of the 80 respondents were self-reported
as APNs and the average number of years as an EBP mentor
was reported as 3 (see Table 2). The majority of the partici-
pants had a Master’s or higher educational degree and was
currently serving in an EBP mentor role. The participants re-
ported holding both clinical positions and academic positions
(see Table 3). There was a relatively even distribution of partic-
ipants who worked in Magnet (n = 36; 45%) and non-Magnet
institutions (n = 44; 55%). The sample represented a variety of
primary work settings (see Table 4).

In the competency rating section of round 1 of the survey,
all of the practicing registered nurse and APN competencies
achieved consensus as an essential competency, based on the
preset criteria. However, in the clarity portion of the rating
section, there was feedback provided by participants regarding
refining the wording of four of the competencies. Each of these

Table 3. Race, Ethnicity, Education, and Role
(N = 80)

n

Race White 75

Black or African American 2

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander

1

Asian 2

Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 79

Hispanic or Latino 1

Education Bachelor’s 9

Master’s 48

PhD 18

DNP 4

Other 1

Current position Staff nurse 5

Nurse practitioner 2

Clinical nurse specialist 12

Clinical nurse leader 0

Nurse educator 18

Nurse manager/administrator 8

Academic faculty 10

Academic administration 3

Other 22

Currently serving in an
EBP mentor role

Yes 63

No 17

four competencies was reworded and included in a second
round of the Delphi study. None of the competencies were
eliminated (see Tables 5 and 6).

Based on the feedback received from the participants in
round 1 related to the clarity of the competencies, the following
process was operationalized. In the single case where clarity
feedback was related simply to consistency in terminology, the
competency was reworded to incorporate the feedback and was
included in round 2 for the reviewers to see that their feed-
back had been integrated. However, they were not asked to
revote on the competency. In the cases where the clarity feed-
back was related to the action described (such as Formulates a
PICOT question vs. Participates in formulating a PICOT ques-
tion), the competencies were reworded and included in round

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15. 9
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

EBP Competencies for Practice

Table 4. Organization (N = 80)

n

Type of primary
work setting

Community hospital 21

Academic medical center 33

Academic institution 21

Primary care practice 1

Community health setting 0

Other 4

Work in a Magnet
designated
institution

Yes 36

No 44

Table 5. Round 1 Registered Nurse (RN) Competen-
cies (N = 80)

Consensus Reword Revote

Competency Mean± SD (Yes–No) (Yes–No)
1 4.9± 0.3 No No
2 4.7± 0.5 No No
3 4.7± 0.5 Yes Yes
4 4.8± 0.4 No No
5 4.6± 0.5 Yes Yes
6 4.6± 0.5 Yes* Yes*

7 4.7± 0.5 No No
8 4.7± 0.5 No No
9 4.8± 0.4 No No
10 4.7± 0.4 No No
11 4.7± 0.5 No No
12 4.8± 0.4 No No

Note. *Competency 6 was split into two separate competency statements
based on round 1 feedback.

2 for the reviewers to see that their feedback had been inte-
grated and they were asked to revote on the whether the revised
competency still rated as an essential EBP competency. Only
registered nurse competencies received feedback that required
revoting. All of the APNs competencies reached consensus
with only minor clarifications in terminology needed.

Table 6. Round 1 APN Competencies (N = 50)

Consensus Reword Revote

Competency Mean± SD (Yes–No) (Yes–No)
1 4.8± 0.4 No No
2 4.9± 0.3 No No
3 4.9± 0.3 No No
4 4.9± 0.3 No No
5 4.9± 0.2 No No
6 5.0± 0.2 No No
7 4.9± 0.3 No No
8 4.9± 0.3 No No
9 4.9± 0.3 No No
10 4.9± 0.2 No No
11 5.0± 0.2 No No

Three registered nurse competencies required rewriting
and revoting. Two competencies (#3, #5) required rewording
and one competency (#6) required splitting into two separate
competencies. Competency 3, formulates focused clinical ques-
tions in PICOT (i.e., Patient population; Intervention or area of
interest; Comparison intervention or group; Outcome; Time), was
revised to be: participates in the formulation of clinical ques-
tions using PICOT* format (*PICOT = Patient population;
Intervention or area of interest; Comparison intervention or
group; Outcome; Time). Competency 5, conducts rapid critical
appraisal of preappraised evidence and clinical practice guidelines
to determine their applicability to clinical practice, was revised to
be: participates in critical appraisal of preappraised evidence
(such as clinical practice guidelines, evidence-based policies
and procedures, and evidence syntheses).

The EBP mentor responses and feedback resulted in the
number of competency statements being increased when com-
petency 6 was split into two separate competency statements.
The additional competency statement was generated based on
feedback related to the clarity of the competency, which re-
flected that more than one idea or action was expressed in
the single competency statement. Competency 6, participates
in critical appraisal (i.e., rapid critical appraisal, evaluation, and
synthesis of published research studies) to determine the strength and
worth of evidence as well as its applicability to clinical practice, was
reworded as new competency 6, participates in the critical ap-
praisal of published research studies to determine their strength and
applicability to clinical practice, and new competency 7, partici-
pates in the evaluation and synthesis of a body of evidence gathered
to determine its strength and applicability to clinical practice.

10 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15.
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

Original Article
Table 7. EBP Competencies

Evidence-based practice competencies for practicing registered professional nurses

1. Questions clinical practices for the purpose of improving the quality of care.

2. Describes clinical problems using internal evidence.* (internal evidence*= evidence generated internally within a clinical
setting, such as patient assessment data, outcomes management, and quality improvement data)

3. Participates in the formulation of clinical questions using PICOT* format. (*PICOT= Patient population; Intervention or area of
interest; Comparison intervention or group; Outcome; Time).

4. Searches for external evidence* to answer focused clinical questions. (external evidence*= evidence generated from research)
5. Participates in critical appraisal of preappraised evidence (such as clinical practice guidelines, evidence-based policies and
procedures, and evidence syntheses).

6. Participates in the critical appraisal of published research studies to determine their strength and applicability to clinical practice.

7. Participates in the evaluation and synthesis of a body of evidence gathered to determine its strength and applicability to clinical
practice.

8. Collects practice data (e.g., individual patient data, quality improvement data) systematically as internal evidence for clinical
decision making in the care of individuals, groups, and populations.

9. Integrates evidence gathered from external and internal sources in order to plan evidence-based practice changes.

10. Implements practice changes based on evidence and clinical expertise and patient preferences to improve care processes and
patient outcomes.

11. Evaluates outcomes of evidence-based decisions and practice changes for individuals, groups, and populations to determine
best practices.

12. Disseminates best practices supported by evidence to improve quality of care and patient outcomes.

13. Participates in strategies to sustain an evidence-based practice culture.

Evidence-based practice competencies for practicing advanced practice nurses
All competencies of practicing registered professional nurses plus:

14. Systematically conducts an exhaustive search for external evidence* to answer clinical questions. (external evidence*: evidence
generated from research)

15. Critically appraises relevant preappraised evidence (i.e., clinical guidelines, summaries, synopses, syntheses of relevant
external evidence) and primary studies, including evaluation and synthesis.

16. Integrates a body of external evidence from nursing and related fields with internal evidence* in making decisions about patient
care. (internal evidence*= evidence generated internally within a clinical setting, such as patient assessment data, outcomes
management, and quality improvement data)

17. Leads transdisciplinary teams in applying synthesized evidence to initiate clinical decisions and practice changes to improve the
health of individuals, groups, and populations.

18. Generates internal evidence through outcomes management and EBP implementation projects for the purpose of integrating
best practices.

19. Measures processes and outcomes of evidence-based clinical decisions.

20. Formulates evidence-based policies and procedures.

21. Participates in the generation of external evidence with other healthcare professionals.

22. Mentors others in evidence-based decision making and the EBP process.

23. Implements strategies to sustain an EBP culture.

24. Communicates best evidence to individuals, groups, colleagues, and policy makers.

Copyright: Melnyk, Gallagher-Ford, and Fineout-Overholt (2013).

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15. 11
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

EBP Competencies for Practice

Table 8. Round 2 Registered Nurse (RN) Competen-
cies (N = 59)

Competency Consensus Mean± SD Consensus Met (Yes–No)
3 4.6± 0.5 Yes
5 4.6± 0.5 Yes
6 4.6± 0.5 Yes
7 4.5± 0.5 Yes

This process rendered a revised set of EBP competencies
that included 13 competencies for registered nurses and an
additional 11 EBP competencies (for a total of 24) for APNs
(see Table 7).

In October 2012, the second round of the Delphi study was
conducted. The revised set of EBP competencies was e-mailed
to the EBP mentors who responded in the first round of the
study in October 2012. The round 2 survey provided feedback to
the EBP mentors about the process that had been conducted by
the study team to render the revised competencies and asked
them to rate the three revised and the two new (split) EBP
competency statements using the same five-point Likert rank-
ing scale used in round 1. Fifty-nine of the 80 original EBP
mentors responded to the second round of the study (74%)
by the response deadline. In round 2 of the study, each of the
13 registered nurse competencies achieved consensus (based
on the preset criteria) as an essential EBP competency (see
Table 8). Throughout the process, none of the EBP mentors
articulated additional competencies, indicating a high level of
consensus about the completeness of the list of EBP compe-
tencies identified in the study. The final list of consensus-built
EBP competencies is included in Table 7.

DISCUSSION
Competencies are a mechanism that supports health profes-
sionals in providing high-quality, safe care (Dunn et al., 2000).
The issue of nursing competence in implementing EBP is im-
portant for individual nurses, APNs, nurse educators, nurse
executives, and healthcare organizations. Regardless of the sys-
tem, the culture and context or environment in which nurses
practice impact the success of engagement in and sustainabil-
ity of EBP. Therefore, it is imperative for nurse executives and
leaders to invest in creating a culture and environment to sup-
port EBP (Melnyk, Fineout-Overholt, et al., 2012). One action
toward investment in a culture of EBP is to provide a mecha-
nism for clarity in expectations for evidence-based care. Devel-
opment of evidence-based competencies provides a key mech-
anism for engagement in EBP and the delivery of high-quality
health care. Through a Delphi survey process, EBP competen-
cies were developed by EBP experts working in a variety of

settings, for registered professional nurses and APNs practic-
ing in real-world healthcare settings. These EBP competencies
can be used by healthcare systems to succinctly establish ex-
pectations regarding level of performance related to EBP by
registered professional nurses and APNs.

Multiple strategies can be used to incorporate competen-
cies into healthcare systems to improve healthcare quality, re-
liability, and patient outcomes as well as reduce variations in
care and costs. These strategies range from implementation of
competencies developed by the AACN, NLN, QSEN, and the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) from an organizational perspective

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

� Practice: Incorporation of EBP competencies into
healthcare system expectations and operations
can drive higher quality, reliability, and consis-
tency of healthcare as well as reduce costs. Support
systems in healthcare institutions, including edu-
cational and skills building programs along with
availability of EBP mentors, should be provided
to assist practicing nurses and APNs in achieving
the EBP competencies.

� Research is needed to develop valid and reliable
instruments for assessing these competencies. Al-
though the Fresno tool has been developed as
a valid and reliable tool for assessing EBP com-
petence in medicine (Ramos, Schafer, & Tracz,
2003), it has not been tested with nursing or al-
lied health professionals. Future research should
also determine the relationship between imple-
mentation of these EBP competencies with both
clinician and patient outcomes.

� Policy: Organizations that set standards for prac-
tice should embrace and endorse the EBP compe-
tencies as a tool to build and sustain acquisition of
EBP knowledge, development of EBP skills, and
incorporation of a positive attitude toward EBP to
promote best practices.

� Management: Nursing leaders should integrate
EBP competencies into multiple processes that
impact nurses across their clinical lifespan includ-
ing; interview questions, onboarding/orientation,
job descriptions, performance appraisals, and
clinical ladder promotion programs.

� Education: EBP competencies should be inte-
grated into both academic and clinical education
programs to establish and continuously reinforce
EBP as the foundation of practice.

12 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15.
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

Original Article
Table 9. Strategies for Integration of the EBP Competencies

Category Organizational Strategies Individual Strategies

Promote a culture and
context or environment
that supports EBP

• Assess the organization’s and employee’s
readiness for implementation of EBP
competencies prior to implementation to
promote development of an effective strategic
plan for their integration.

• Be an evidence-based clinician by integrating
EBP competencies into daily practice to
deliver the best care possible to patients and
families.

• Include EBP competency language in the
mission and vision statements for nursing as
well as shared governance council charters.

• Be a role model for others by making decisions
based on evidence every day.

• Provide systems and resources that support
the integration and use of EBP competencies,
such as a critical mass of EBP mentors,
access to library services including a
dedicated librarian, and availability of a PhD
prepared nurse scientist.

• Include EBP competencies in role expectations
of nurse leaders to support the
implementation of EBP in all aspects of care.

• Provide educational and skills building
programs to support clinicians’ attainment of
the EBP competencies.

• Support the development of EBP mentors, who
meet/exceed the EBP competencies to
support practicing nurses and APNs in EBP
projects.

Establish EBP performance
expectations for all nurse
leaders and clinicians:

• Include EBP-competency-related questions in
interview processes

• Expect evidence-based decision making from
others to promote a work environment where
the best care is possible.

• Design onboarding/orientation programs that
specifically align with EBP competencies

• Rewrite job descriptions to include the EBP
competencies

Sustain EBP activities and
culture

• Include EBP competencies in performance
appraisals and clinical ladder programs

• Become an EBP mentor and help others to
develop and integrate the EBP competencies
into their daily practice.

• Imbed EBP competencies in practice policy
and guideline development processes

to actions and decisions made by point of care nurses (AACN,
2013; NLN, 2013; IOM, 2003). In addition, strategies can be
developed to integrate the scientifically derived, specific EBP
competencies developed in this study. EBP competencies can
be used as tools to guide the development of individuals
and organizations. Strategies for integration of the competen-
cies require both organizational and individual actions (see
Table 9).

LIMITATIONS
The main limitation of this study is that it used a convenience
sample of nurses who attended an EBP immersion workshop
at the first author’s institution, which may have biased the re-
search findings. In addition, some of the respondents were
not currently in an EBP mentorship role in practice settings.
Despite these limitations, the use of an expert EBP leader-
ship panel to first draft the competencies along with a Delphi

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15. 13
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

EBP Competencies for Practice

survey technique with individuals who had EBP mentorship
experience in real-world practice settings were strengths in the
development of this set of contemporary EBP competencies for
practicing and APNs.

SUMMARY
A national consensus process and Delphi study was conducted
to establish contemporary EBP competencies for practicing
registered nurses and APNs. Incorporation of these EBP com-
petencies into healthcare systems should lead to higher quality
of care, greater reliability, improved patient outcomes, and re-
duced costs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following national expert
panel who participated in the first phase of achieving consensus
in the development of these EBP competencies: Dr. Karen Bal-
akas, Dr. Ellen Fineout-Overholt, Dr. Anna Gawlinski, Dr. Mar-
ilyn Hockenberry, Dr. Rona F. Levin, Dr. Bernadette Mazurek
Melnyk, and Dr. Teri Wurmser. WVN

Author information

Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk, Associate Vice President for
Health Promotion, University Chief Wellness Officer, Dean
and Professor, College of Nursing, Professor of Pediatrics and
Psychiatry, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH; Lynn Gallagher-Ford, Clinical Associate Pro-
fessor and Director, Center for Transdisciplinary Evidence-
based Practice, College of Nursing, The Ohio State Univer-
sity, Columbus, OH; Lisa English Long, Expert Evidence-based
Practice Mentor, Clinical Instructor, College of Nursing, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Ellen Fineout-Overholt,
Dean and Professor, Groner School of Professional Studies,
Chair, Department of Nursing, East Texas Baptist University,
Marshall, TX.
Address correspondence to Dr. Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk,
College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, 1585 Neil Av-
enue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; Melnyk.15@osu.edu

Accepted 28 October 2013
Copyright C© 2014, Sigma Theta Tau International

References
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN). (2013).

Nurse Competencies of Concern to Patients, Clinical
Units and Systems. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.org/wd/
certifications/content/synpract2.pcms?menu

Burns, B. (2009). Continuing competency: What’s ahead? Journal
of Perinatal Neonatal Nurse, 23(3), 218–227.

Dogherty, E. J., Harrison, M. B., Graham, I. D., Vandyk, A. D.,
& Keeping-Burke, L. (2013). Turning knowledge into action at
the point-of-care: The collective experience of nurses facilitating
the implementation of evidence-based practice. Worldviews on
Evidence-Based Nursing, 10(3), 129–139.

Dunn, S. V., Lawson, D., Robertson, S., Underwood, M., Clark,
R., Valentine, T., & Herewane, D. (2000). The development of

competency standards for specialist critical care nurses. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 31(2), 339–346.

Ely, J. W., Osheroff, J. A., Chambliss, M. L., Ebell, M. H., & Rosen-
baum, M. E. (2005). Answering physicians’ clinical questions:
Obstacles and potential solutions. Journal of American Medical
Informatics Association, 12(2), 217–224.

Estabrooks, C. A., O’Leary, K. A., Ricker, K. L., & Humphrey, C.
K. (2003). The Internet and access to evidence: How are nurses
positioned? Journal of Advance Nursing, 42(1), 73–81.

Estabrooks, C. A., Squires, J. E., Cummings, G. G., Birdsell, J.
M., & Norton, P. G. (2009). Development and assessment of
the Alberta Context Tool. BMC Health Services Research, 9(234),
1–12.

Fink, R. Thompson, C., & Bonnes, D. (2005). Overcoming barriers
and promoting the use of research in practice. Journal of Nursing
Administration, 35(3), 121–129.

Gerrish, K., & Clayton, J. (2004). Promoting evidence-based prac-
tice: An organizational approach. Journal of Nursing Management,
12(2), 114–123.

Gonzi, A., Hager, P., & Athanasou, J. (1993). The development of
competency-based assessment strategies for the professions. National
Office of Overseas Skills Recognition Research Paper No. 8.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing
Service.

Green, B., Jones, M., Hughes, D., & Williams, A. (2002). Apply-
ing the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information re-
quirements. Health & Social Care in the Community, 7(3), 198–
205.

Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guide-
lines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nurs-
ing, 32(4), 1008–1015.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (US), Committee on Assuring the
Health of the Public in the 21st Century. (2003). The future of
the public’s health in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.

Jennings, B. M., & Loan, L. A. (2001). Misconceptions among
nurses about evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Schol-
arship, 33(2), 121–127.

Kring, D. L. (2008). Clinical nurse specialist practice domains and
evidence-based practice competencies: A matrix of influence.
Clinical Nurse Specialist, 22(4), 179–183.

McGinty, J., & Anderson, G. (2008). Predictors of physician com-
pliance with American Heart Association guidelines for acute
myocardial infarction. Critical Care Nursing Quarterly, 31(2), 161–
172.

Melnyk, B. M. (2007). The evidence-based practice mentor: A
promising strategy for implementing and sustaining EBP in
healthcare systems [editorial]. Worldviews on Evidence-Based
Nursing, 4(3), 123–125.

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2011). Evidence-based prac-
tice in nursing and healthcare. A guide to best practice. Philadelphia,
PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Feinstein, N., Li, H. S., Small,
L., Wilcox, L., & Kraus, R. (2004). Nurses’ perceived knowledge,
beliefs, skills, and needs regarding evidence-based practice: Im-
plications for accelerating the paradigm shift. Worldviews on
Evidence-Based Nursing, 1(3), 185–193.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Gallagher-Ford, L., & Kaplan,
L. (2012). The state of evidence-based practice in US nurses:

14 Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15.
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

Original Article
Critical implications for nurse leaders and educators. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 42(9), 410–417.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., & Mays, M. Z. (2008). The
evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation scales: Psy-
chometric properties of two new instruments. Worldviews on
Evidence-Based Nursing, 5(4), 208–216.

Melnyk, B. M., & Gallagher-Ford, L. (2013). Evidence-based practice
competencies for registered practicing nurses and advanced practice
nurses. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University College of
Nursing Center for Transdisciplinary Evidence-Based Practice.

Melnyk, B. M., Grossman, D., Chou, R., Mabry-Hernandez, I.,
Nicholson, W., Dewitt, T., . . . US Preventive Services Task
Force. (2012). USPSTF perspective on evidence-based preven-
tive recommendations for children. Pediatrics, 130(2), e399–
e407. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-2087

National League for Nursing (NLN). (2013). Competencies
for Nursing Education. Retrieved from: http://www.nln.org/
facultyprograms/competencies/graduates_competencies.htm

Newhouse, R. P., Dearholt, S., Poe, S., Pugh, L. C., & White,
K. M. (2007). Organizational change strategies for evidence-
based practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 37(12), 552–
557.

Pravikoff, D. S., Pierce, S. T., & Tanner, A. (2005). Evidence-based
practice readiness study supported by academy nursing infor-
matics expert panel. Nursing Outlook, 53(1), 49–50.

Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN). (2013).
The Evolution of the Quality and Safety Education for
Nurses (QSEN) Initiative. Retrieved from: http://qsen.org/
about-qsen/project-overview/

Ramos, K. D., Schafer, S., & Tracz, S. M. (2003). Validation of the
Fresno test of competence in evidence-based medicine. British
Medical Journal, 326, 319–321.

Restas, A. (2000). Barriers to using research evidence in nursing
practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(3), 599–606.

Rycroft-Malone, J. (2004). The PARIHS framework—A frame-
work for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice.
Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 19(4), 297–304.

Rycroft-Malone, J., Harvey, G., Seers, K., Kitson, A., McCormack,
B., & Titchen, A. (2004). An exploration of the factors that in-
fluence the implementation of evidence into practice. Journal of
Clinical Nursing, 13(8), 913–924.

Stevens, K. R. (2009). Essential competencies for evidence-based prac-
tice in nursing (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Academic Center
for Evidence-Based Practice, University of Texas Health Science
Center at San Antonio.

Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: An adaptive research
tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153–156.

Titler, M. G. (2009). Developing an evidence-based practice. In G.
LoBiondo-Wood & J. Haber (Eds.), Nursing research: Methods and
critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (7th ed., pp. 385–437).
St Louis, MO: Mosby.

Williams, P. L., & Webb, C. (1994). The Delphi technique: An
adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy,
61(4), 153–156.

doi 10.1111/wvn.12021
WVN 2014;11:5–15

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2014; 11:1, 5–15. 15
C© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International

Copyright of Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.