Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric

6Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: Point-of-care tools (PoCTs) provide evidence-based information on patient care and procedures at the time of need. Registered nurses have unique practice needs, and many PoCTs are marketed to support their practice. However, there is little reported evidence in the literature about evaluating nursing-focused PoCTs Case Presentation: The investigators developed a rubric containing evaluation criteria based on content, coverage of nursing topics, transparency of the evidence, user perception, and customization of PoCTs for supporting nursing practice. The investigators selected five PoCTs cited in the literature and of interest to local nursing leadership: ClinicalKey for Nursing, DynaMed, Lippincott’s Advisor and Procedures, Nursing Reference Center Plus, and UpToDate. Application of the rubric found Lippincott had the highest coverage of diagnoses, while ClinicalKey for Nursing had strong content focused on interventions and outcomes. Nursing Reference Center Plus provided the most well-rounded coverage of nursing terminology and topics. DynaMed and UpToDate were more transparent with indicating conflict of interest, but both had lower coverage of nursing terminology, content, and care processes. Conclusion: None of the five PoCTs strongly met all of the evaluated criteria. The rubric developed for this study highlights each PoCT’s strengths and weaknesses that can then be used to inform the decision-making process based on priorities and budget. The investigators recommend licensing a nursing PoCT and a PoCT like DynaMed or UpToDate to provide comprehensive, evidence-based, patient care coverage and to meet the diverse information needs of nurses.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nickum, A., Johnson-Barlow, E., Raszewski, R., & Rafferty, R. (2022). Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 110(3), 358–364. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1257

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free