National evaluation of DNP students' use of the PICOT method for formulating clinical questions

Author:

Milner Kerry A.1ORCID,Hays Deana2,Farus‐Brown Susan3,Zonsius Mary C.4,Saska Elizabeth1,Fineout‐Overholt Ellen5

Affiliation:

1. Sacred Heart University Davis and Henley College of Nursing Fairfield Connecticut USA

2. Oakland University Rochester Michigan USA

3. Ohio University School of Nursing Athens Ohio USA

4. Rush University College of Nursing Chicago Illinois USA

5. Ascension St Louis Missouri USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe intent of the PICOT (i.e., Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Time) method is to formulate focused clinical questions to facilitate the discovery of relevant evidence through systematic searching, with the components of the question serving as the foundation for the search. Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) graduates use evidence‐based practices to institute changes in their organizations' systems and policies, thereby yielding positive effects on both patient and system outcomes. Given that the clinical question is the foundation of the evidence‐based practice process, DNP graduates' competence in the PICOT method needs to be better understood.AimsThis analysis aimed to describe how DNP students used the PICOT method to ask clinical questions in their DNP projects.MethodsProject questions were retrieved from a subset (n = 129, 60.56%) of an existing national random sample of publicly available DNP projects spanning the years 2010 to 2021 from Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education‐accredited schools (n = 213). Project questions using the PICOT method were further evaluated with a scoring system of 0 = no and 1 = yes for missing elements, formatting, directional outcome, and project purpose. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more errors. Discussion among five researchers, until agreement was achieved, yielded consensus.ResultsAlthough the PICOT method was project author‐identified in 66 (31.0%) projects, only four (6%) followed the PICOT method. All 66 (100%) were intervention questions. There were 2.74 (SD 1.55) mean errors, ranging from 0 to 6. No questions were missing P or O. Specific errors included missing I 3 (4.5%) or missing C 37 (56%), poor formatting 34 (51.5%), directional outcome 44 (66.7%), and project purpose 38 (57.6%). Thirty‐three (50%) of the questions were missing T; however, T is not used for searching, so researchers recalculated the mean error without T (M = 2.24, SD = 1.28, range 0–5).Linking Evidence to ActionGaps in the accurate use of the PICOT method to construct clinical questions can lead to biased searches, inaccurate clinical problem identification, and, when used as the project purpose, jumping to non‐evidence‐based solutions. Academic faculty and clinical educators can mitigate these skewed outcomes and enhance their impact on quality outcomes by helping DNP‐prepared nurses shore up this foundational skill.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference31 articles.

1. Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

2. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2015).The Doctor of Nursing Practice: Current issues and clarifying recommendations report from the task force on the implementation of the DNP.http://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/DNP/DNP‐Implementation.pdf?ver=2017‐08‐01‐105830‐517

3. American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021).The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing education.https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/AcademicNursing/pdf/Essentials‐2021.pdf

4. The Problem With the PICO Question: Shiny Object Syndrome and the PURPOSE Statement Solution

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Removing Persistent Barriers to Systematic Searching;AJN, American Journal of Nursing;2024-06-20

2. Navigating Clinical Questions;AJN, American Journal of Nursing;2024-04-25

3. Clinical Inquiry and Problem Identification;AJN, American Journal of Nursing;2024-04-25

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3