Introduction
The process of integrating scientific evidence into nursing practice is critical for ensuring efficient performance. Thus, there is a wide scope of different models developed in order to assist nurses in implementing the relevant knowledge in their work. The paper at hand provides a brief overview of the two models: John’s Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model and Iowa Model of Research-Based Practice. The analysis is aimed at pointing out the common traits that these approaches share as well as the key differences that need to be considered.
Comparing and Contrasting
On the face of it, the models under discussion have few differences – they share a common aim and base on the similar principles. Meanwhile, there are some distinguishing features that need to be considered in order to select the model relevant to the specificity of the targeted outcomes.
According to White and Dudley-Brown (2011), John’s Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice (JHNEBP) Model is a scientific approach that implies integrating valid theoretical knowledge into working experience (13). Iowa Model of Research-Based Practice is based on the similar core principles – thus, it is aimed at allowing nurses implementing research findings in their everyday practice (White & Dudley-Brown, 2011).
Therefore, the key target of both models resides in incorporating the available evidence for the benefit of the quality of the Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). Hence, it might be assumed that both models were initially designed to solve one and the same problem. However, their structures are still different.
First and foremost, Iowa Model of Research-Based Practice is more complicated in terms of the stages that it suggests. While JHNEBP’s process is relatively simple – practice evidence, question, translation, – the algorithm developed in the framework of Iowa Model is much more complicated. Thus, Chiappelli (2010) points out eight main stages: the identification of triggers, the generation of the pivot questions, the formation of a team, the analysis of the collected data, the preparation of the change strategy, the implementation of this change, the outcomes’ monitoring, and the evaluation of the results (63).
It is essential to note that the triggers component is the one that distinguishes Iowa Model from JHNEBP Model and all the other models of a similar character. White and Duddle-Brown (2011) explain that there are two types of triggers: problem-focused and knowledge-focused (15). These triggers help a nurse stick to a certain algorithm and address each problem complexly.
In addition, Iowa Model concept suggests that the implemented evidence-based knowledge should be necessarily relevant to the particular organizational context (Gawlinski & Rutledge, 2008). Otherwise stated, it is considered critical to ensure the selected scientific theory can be applied to the environment. JHNEBP concept, in its turn, suggests that the scientific evidence should be, first and foremost, relevant to the targeted problem. On the whole, however, both models are supposed to assist nurses in carrying out effective decision-making with the use of the latest research findings and valid theories.
Conclusion
The analysis of the two models has shown that in spite of the fact that they generally target a common aim, their structures are slightly different. Moreover, the key focus of Iowa model is placed on implementing the evidence into a particular environment, whereas JHNEBP Model puts a particular emphasis on selecting the relevant theoretical evidence to address a specific problem.
Reference List
Chiappelli, C. (2010). Evidence-Based Practice: Toward Optimizing Clinical Outcomes. Los Angeles, California: Springer Science & Business Media.
Gawlinski, A., & Rutledge, D. (2008). Selecting a Model for Evidence-Based Practice Changes. Advanced Critical Care, 19(3), 291-300.
White, K.M., & Dudley-Brown, B. (2011). Translation of Evidence into Nursing and Health Care Practice. New York, New York: Springer Publishing.