Identifying key stakeholders that can affect or will be affected as a result of your evidence-based project recommendations. Please refer to linked Appendix C: (My Evidence Base Project will be about the continuous readmission to detox center post completion of detox.
After identifying and completing the stakeholder worksheet, find a database such as Google Scholar or the database of your choice to conduct a preliminary search of evidence-based articles related to your topic. Choose one relevant article and identify the level and quality by using linked Appendix D:
· Reequipment APA format.
· Articles within the last past 5 years.
· Plagiarism free
· Attached copy of the article being used for this post.
|1. Identify the key stakeholders.|
|· Manager or direct supervisor· Finance department· Vendors· Patients and/or families; patient and family advisory committee· Professional organizations· Committees||· Organizational leaders· Interdisciplinary colleagues (e.g. physicians, nutritionists, respiratory therapists, or OT/PT)· Administrators· Other units or departments· Others: ________________|
|2. Stakeholder roles and responsibilities. (The stakeholder roles—which include Responsibility, Consult, Approval, and Inform and their corresponding responsibilities, described here—guide completion of the table.)|
|Responsibility· Completes identified tasks· Recommending authority||Consult· Provides input (e.g., subject matter experts)· No decision-making authority|
|Approval· Signs off on recommendations· May veto||Inform· Notified of progress and changes· No input on decisions|
|Project tasks||Stakeholder name||Stakeholder name||Stakeholder name|
|Stakeholder role||Stakeholder role||Stakeholder role|
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
© The 2017 Johns Hopkins Hospital/ Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing
Directions for Use of the Stakeholder Analysis Tool
This form is used to identify key stakeholders. Key stakeholders are persons, groups, or departments in the organization that have an interest in, or concern about, your project and/or may assist you in securing resources to implement your action plan. Involve stakeholders early in the process to ensure their buy-in for implementation.
Because stakeholders may change at different steps of the process, we recommend that you review this form as you proceed from step to step in your action plan.
Stakeholders are “persons or groups that have a vested interest in a clinical [or nonclinical] decision and the evidence that supports that decision” (AHRQ, 2014).
Identify the key stakeholders
Identify the 5–7 key stakeholders who can most affect, or who will be most affected by, the project, actions, objectives, or change and who can influence the success of the translation work. Key stakeholders are individuals or groups who:
· Make decisions about the project
· Approve the project or aspects of the project
· Serve as subject matter experts
· Provide resources such as support, policy changes, resources, and time
It is helpful to consider which of the four roles each stakeholder may play in your action planning and translation work. The possible roles are:
Remember that one stakeholder may fill different roles, depending on the action. Completion of the Stakeholder Analysis Tool will help clarify roles and responsibilities. The descriptions of responsibilities for each role provided on the form will be helpful in this process.
References: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2014) .Stakeholder Guide 2014 .Retrieved from www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC010-EF. Replaces Publication No. 11-EHC069-EF
|Evidence Levels||Quality Ratings|
|Level IExperimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT)Explanatory mixed method design that includes only a level I quaNtitative studySystematic review of RCTs, with or without meta- analysis||QuaNtitative StudiesA High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence.B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence.C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn.|
|Level IIQuasi-experimental studyExplanatory mixed method design that includes only a level II quaNtitative studySystematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysisLevel IIINonexperimental studySystematic review of a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and nonexperimental studies, or nonexperimental studies only, with or without meta-analysisExploratory, convergent, or multiphasic mixed methods studiesExplanatory mixed method design that includesonly a level III quaNtitative studyQuaLitative study Meta-synthesis||QuaLitative StudiesNo commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known about the researchers’ efforts to meet the appraisal criteria.For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments of individual studies should be made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies1.A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses2.The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry. Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report:· Transparency: Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated.· Diligence: Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find multiple sources to corroborate evidence.· Verification: The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence.· Self-reflection and scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a researcher’s experiences, background, or prejudices might shape and bias analysis and interpretations.· Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of questions; analysis and interpretation give voice to those who participated.· Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature.C Low quality studies contribute little to the overall review of findings and have few, if any, of the features listed for high/good quality.|
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix D Evidence Level and Quality Guide
©2017 The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing
|Evidence Levels||Quality Ratings|
|Level IVOpinion of respected authorities and/or nationally recognized expert committees or consensus panels based on scientific evidenceIncludes:· Clinical practice guidelines· Consensus panels/position statements||A High quality: Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; documentation of a systematic literature search strategy; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies and definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five yearsB Good quality: Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; reasonably thorough and appropriate systematic literature search strategy; reasonably consistent results, sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies with fairly definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five yearsC Low quality or major flaws: Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency; undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy; no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies, insufficient evidence with inconsistent results, conclusions cannot be drawn; not revised within the past five years|
|Level VBased on experiential and nonresearch evidenceIncludes:· Integrative reviews· Literature reviews· Quality improvement, program, or financial evaluation· Case reports· Opinion of nationally recognized expert(s) based on experiential evidence||Organizational Experience (quality improvement, program or financial evaluation)A High quality: Clear aims and objectives; consistent results across multiple settings; formal quality improvement, financial, or program evaluation methods used; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations with thorough reference to scientific evidenceB Good quality: Clear aims and objectives; consistent results in a single setting; formal quality improvement, financial, or program evaluation methods used; reasonably consistent recommendations with some reference to scientific evidenceC Low quality or major flaws: Unclear or missing aims and objectives; inconsistent results; poorly defined quality improvement, financial, or program evaluation methods; recommendations cannot be madeIntegrative Review, Literature Review, Expert Opinion, Case Report, Community Standard, Clinician Experience, Consumer PreferenceA High quality: Expertise is clearly evident; draws definitive conclusions; provides scientific rationale; thought leader(s) in the fieldB Good quality: Expertise appears to be credible; draws fairly definitive conclusions; provides logical argument for opinionsC Low quality or major flaws: Expertise is not discernable or is dubious; conclusions cannot be drawn|
1 https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/6_4_ASSESSMENT_OF_QUALIT A TIVE_RESEARCH.htm 2 Adapted from Polit & Beck (2017).