During the perioperative period, many health care professionals use the recommendations and instructions detailed in scientific studies. Because there are many scientific and unscientific ideas on how to care for patients, it is necessary to be able to determine the level of evidence for a particular method, as not all reviews have a strong scientific basis. The AORN Research Evidence Assessment Tool can minimize the likelihood of statistical errors and subjectivity in clinical trials. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the principles of the chosen model for assessing levels of evidence in trials.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The mechanism of this international model is that to identify the authenticity and scientific nature of the article, several experts in this field study each section of the study in parallel. As a result of the study, each of them fills in a ready-made template-form, and then all the data is collected and systematized. They are used as a basis for building an average value of proof of specific manuals for nurses. This method can be used to systematically analyze research results against several credibility criteria (Spruce, Van Wiklin, and Wood, 2016). Only those studies that have been carefully selected for subjectivity and unreliability of reproducible results are subsequently prepared for publication as a guide for medical staff.
An undoubted advantage of this model can be considered a critical justification of the decisions made. Multi-factor verification by several experts at once can achieve maximum objectivity. Moreover, the big problem of scientific research is the non-reproducibility of the results when switching to another sample. For this reason, the use of the AORN Evidence Assessment Tool makes the results less random or biased (Spruce, Van Wicklin, Hicks, Conner, & Dunn, 2014). There are also disadvantages to this model, such as the fact that the research process is not fast and easy to use. Each participant in the analysis takes time to reach their verdict and then needs more time to average the results.
This method plays a role in the training of postoperative medical personnel. The first time that nurses who have not mastered critical analysis skills use this method to become familiar with evidence-based medicine, they use it (Buccheri, & Sharifi, 2017). Moreover, it can be used in situations where the evidence base for a particular medical issue is being assessed. This can be a real situation during clinical practice or a discussion of research with a teacher. As a result, such medical staff will be able to move more effectively from subjective assessment to more analytical and objective evaluation.
As mentioned earlier, in many studies, a particular scientific or unscientific hypothesis is tested on a sample of patients. For example, a survey of new nursing care methods has been shown to be highly effective in combating adolescent diseases.
However, it is often the case that the resulting data may not work in the same sample. Postoperative patient care guidelines may not be appropriate for older people, although they are useful for younger audiences. The instructions under the DPI project are not suitable for patients over 65 years of age. Therefore, an additional tool is needed that pre-evaluates the evidence of the methods and articles. Using the AORN Evidence Assessment Tool significantly reduces the subjectivity and bias of research.
New nursing care recommendations and guidance that appear every year must be checked for validity; otherwise, they may harm the health of patients. For this purpose, the AORN Research Evidence Assessment Tool has been developed, which allows for the verification of the relevant experts, the assessment of the objectivity of the idea, and the analysis of possible harm or benefit to patients. The form of the template that the experts fill out is unique and thoroughly addresses all critical questions. In medical practice, this tool is useful for students who are not yet familiar with the foundation of evidence-based medicine.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Buccheri, R. K., & Sharifi, C. (2017). Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence‐based practice. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 14(6), 463-472.
Spruce, L., Van Wicklin, S. A., & Wood, A. (2016). AORN’s revised model for evidence appraisal and rating. AORN Journal, 103(1), 60-72.
Spruce, L., Van Wicklin, S. A., Hicks, R. W., Conner, R., & Dunn, D. (2014). Introducing AORN’s new model for evidence rating. AORN Journal, 99(2), 243-255.