These competencies promote excellence in the advanced specialty role of the academic nurse educator. They establish nursing education as a specialty area of practice and create a means for faculty to more fully demonstrate the richness and complexity of the faculty role. NLN Core Competencies Note: The task statements that accompany each competency can be found in (2012). Competency I: Facilitate Learning Nurse educators are responsible for creating an environment in classroom, laboratory, and clinical settings that facilitates student learning and the achievement of desired cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes.

1. Gace Computer Competency Study Guide
2. Rbt Competency Study Guide

Competency II: Facilitate Learner Development and Socialization Nurse educators recognize their responsibility for helping students develop as nurses and integrate the values and behaviors expected of those who fulfill that role. Competency III: Use Assessment and Evaluation Strategies Nurse educators use a variety of strategies to asses and evaluate student learning in classroom, laboratory and clinical settings, as well as in all domains of learning.

Competency IV: Participate in Curriculum Design and Evaluation of Program Outcomes Nurse educators are responsible for formulating program outcomes and designing curricula that reflect contemporary health care trends and prepare graduates to function effectively in the health care environment. Competency V: Function as a Change Agent and Leader Nurse educators function as change agents and leaders to create a preferred future for nursing education and nursing practice. Competency VI: Pursue Continuous Quality Improvements in the Nurse Educator Role Nurse educators recognize that their role is multidimensional and that an ongoing commitment to develop and maintain competence in the role is essential. Competency VII: Engage in Scholarship Nurse educators acknowledge that scholarship is an integral component of the faculty role, and that teaching itself is a scholarly activity. Competency VIII: Function Within the Educational Environment Nurse educators are knowledgeable about the educational environment within which they practice and recognize how political, institutional, social, and economic forces impact their role.

Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment. Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check 'No potential conflicts of interest' in the box below. The information will be posted with your response. Abstract Importance Evidence-based practice (EBP) is necessary for improving the quality of health care as well as patient outcomes. Evidence-based practice is commonly integrated into the curricula of undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing professional development health programs. There is, however, inconsistency in the curriculum content of EBP teaching and learning programs.

A standardized set of minimum core competencies in EBP that health professionals should meet has the potential to standardize and improve education in EBP. Objective To develop a consensus set of core competencies for health professionals in EBP. Introduction The term evidence-based medicine was first developed in the field of medicine in the early 1990s, but as its use expanded to include other health disciplines, it became known as evidence-based practice (EBP).

Evidence-based practice provides a framework for the integration of research evidence and patients’ values and preferences into the delivery of health care., Implementation of EBP principles has resulted in major advances in improving the quality of delivered health care as well as patient outcomes. The last 20 years have seen EBP increasingly integrated as a core component into the curriculum of undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education health programs worldwide., Many national registration bodies and accreditation councils (eg, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the United States) expect that all clinicians (ie, health professionals and learners of any discipline) should be competent in EBP. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine), an independent, nongovernmental, nonprofit organization that provides advice, counsel, and independent research on major topics in health care, has recognized EBP as one of the core competencies necessary for continuous improvement of the quality and safety of health care. Although many teaching strategies have been used and evaluated, a lack of EBP knowledge and skills is still one of the most commonly reported barriers to practicing EBP., One of the potential explanations is the inconsistency in the quality and content of the EBP teaching programs (also L.A., P.G., T.H., unpublished data, 2018). A standardized set of core competencies in EBP for clinicians and students may therefore improve EBP teaching and learning programs as well as EBP knowledge and skills. Core competencies have been defined as the essential minimal set of a combination of attributes, such as applied knowledge, skills, and attitudes, that enable an individual to perform a set of tasks to an appropriate standard efficiently and effectively. Core competencies offer a common shared language for all health professions for defining what all are expected to be able to do to work optimally.

Recognizing it as a promising way of reforming and managing medical education and ultimately improving quality of care, the Institute of Medicine report Health Professions Education: A Bridge to Quality endorsed competency-based education across the health professions. Implementation of competency-based education involves the identification of core competencies, designing curricula and teaching programs that clearly articulate the attributes underpinning each core competency, and developing assessment tools that provide a valid and reliable evaluation of these core competencies. A clear outline of core competencies is critical in any health care education setting, as it informs the blueprinting of a curriculum, including learning outcomes, assessment strategies, and graduate attributes. Therefore, defining core competencies is a priority in health care education., - Unaware of any systematically derived set of core competencies in EBP, we set out to remedy this deficiency. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus-based set of core EBP competencies that EBP teaching and learning programs should cover. Methods We conducted a multistage, modified Delphi study, in which we (1) generated, from a systematic review, an initial set of potential competencies to be considered for inclusion in the EBP core competencies set; (2) conducted a 2-round modified Delphi survey to prioritize and gain consensus on the most essential EBP core competencies; (3) held a meeting to finalize the consensus on the set of EBP core competencies; and (4) sought feedback and endorsement from EBP experts and planned for dissemination. Generation of an Initial Set of Relevant EBP Competencies We previously completed a systematic review of EBP educational studies, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guidelines.

Studies were eligible if they were controlled (that is, had a separate group for comparison) and had investigated the effect of EBP education among clinicians (irrespective of the level of training, profession, or intervention format). Of 1682 articles identified, we screened 714 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Of these, 286 full-text articles were obtained for review, and 83 articles proved eligible. Results of the review, rather than competencies, are reported elsewhere.

We reviewed included studies to identify EBP competencies addressed in these studies. In addition, EBP curricula and key statements (eg, Sicily statement on EBP, Institute of Medicine reports, and the Informed Health Choice key concepts,) were identified by contacting experts in this field and reviewing suggested documents. These were reviewed for relevant EBP competencies, which were defined as “attributes such as applied knowledge, skills and attitudes that enable an individual to perform a set of tasks to an appropriate standard efficiently and effectively.” Three of us (L.A., T.H., and P.G.) independently extracted EBP competencies from a random sample of 20 articles and continued discussion until consensus was attained. Afterward, one of us (L.A.) extracted EBP competencies from the rest of the included articles.

Gace Computer Competency Study Guide

These authors reviewed this set of initial EBP competencies for duplication, overlap, and clarity, leaving uniquely specified competencies. The same 3 authors grouped these competencies into the relevant EBP steps (introductory, ask, acquire, appraise and interpret, apply, and evaluate). EMethods 1 in the presents detailed methods of this stage. Two-Round Delphi Survey We used a modified 2-round Delphi survey to obtain the input of a broad range of experts and stakeholders on the most essential EBP core competencies. We used a purposive and snowball sampling approach to invite clinicians who had significant experience in teaching and/or practicing EBP to register their interest in participating in our Delphi survey (February 2017). We sent email invitations to the evidence-based health care listserv and other networks of national and international evidence-based health societies and posted announcements on social media (eg, Twitter and Facebook).

The illustrates the process of the modified Delphi survey. The round 1 survey (March-April 2017) consisted of 86 competencies grouped into EBP steps (introductory, ask, acquire, appraise and interpret, apply, and evaluate). We invited participants who responded and registered their interest to participate in round 1. Consensus Meeting and Postmeeting Activities A 2-day consensus meeting (July 10-11, 2017) was organized by the Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (L.A., T.H., and P.G.) and involved 10 participants purposively chosen to represent a range of health professions, experience in teaching EBP, geographical locations, and representation of EBP societies and organizations. We presented the results of the systematic review and the 2-round Delphi survey.

Following presentation of the results, the group participated in focused discussions addressing the proposed set of core competencies and made final decisions on the inclusion of each competency and its wording and description. To ensure that the consensus set of competencies reflected the decisions made, participants reviewed a document presenting the consensus set of competencies after the meeting. To ensure the validity, applicability, utility, and clarity of the competencies, we sent the final set of EBP core competencies for external feedback to 15 EBP experts (purposively identified to represent different EBP organizations and societies, including the International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care board members). Based on feedback from EBP experts, we further revised the wording and explanation of the competencies.

All coauthors were emailed the draft document and provided minor wording suggestions. Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting Of the 234 individuals who registered their interest (88 61.1% women; mean SD age, 45.2 10.2 years), 184 (78.6%) participated in round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 144 participated in round 2 (61.5%, or 78.3% of round 1 participants). Of the 144 round 2 participants, 88 (61.1%) were women, 63 (43.8%) were 30 to 44 years old, 60 (41.7%) were 45 to 59 years old, and 115 (79.9%) currently taught EBP, with a mean (SD) of 10.9 (7.4) years of EBP teaching experience. Participants were from 28 different countries. In total, 59 participants (41.0%) were medical professionals (not including nurses, who were categorized separately) and 56 (38.9%) were allied health professionals.

More than one-third of participants (n = 54 37.5%) had both clinical and academic (teaching or research) roles. The majority (n = 118 81.9%) were working in a university setting, and 53 participants (36.8%) worked in hospitals. After round 1, 11 competencies attained the predefined consensus level (≥70%) (group A); 25 competencies were rated by the majority (≥85%) practiced with exercises or explained (group B); 28 were rated by the majority (≥85%) explained or mentioned (group C); 4 were rated by the majority (≥85%) mentioned or omitted (group D); and 9 new competencies were suggested by participants (group E).

After round 2, 48 competencies had achieved the consensus level (≥70%): 20 competencies were rated as practiced with exercises; 20 as explained; and 8 as mentioned. In total, 29 competencies did not achieve the a priori consensus level and were retained for further discussion at the consensus meeting; 20 were subsequently included. The illustrates the results of the modified Delphi survey. ETables 3 and 4 in the present detailed results of rounds 1 and 2. Core Competencies in EBP After the 2 rounds of Delphi survey and the consensus meeting, a total of 68 competencies achieved consensus for inclusion in the final set of EBP core competencies.

Presents the final set of EBP core competencies (eTable 5 in the includes the set and an elaboration of each competency). The final set of EBP core competencies are grouped into the main EBP domains: introductory (n = 5); ask (n = 3); acquire (n = 4); appraise and interpret (n = 9); apply (n = 4); and evaluate (n = 2). We also provide a description of each key competency and the level of detail or delivery for each one (a proxy of the time that should be dedicated to teaching each competency—M, mentioned; E, explained; and P, practiced with exercise).

We found that most of the core competencies could be classified within the 5-step model of EBP, which is also used by the Sicily statement, except for the introductory competencies, which we therefore retained. Discussion This study was a rigorous process, which involved integrating evidence from a systematic review, conducting a modified Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting, and receiving external feedback from EBP experts, to achieve consensus on the most essential core competencies that should be taught in EBP educational programs for clinicians and students. The final consensus set includes 68 core competencies. A previous study has developed a set of EBP competencies, but it was limited to a single discipline (nursing) and country (United States) and did not use a systematic review to inform the Delphi survey. Some competencies appear in this previously identified set (eg, critical appraisal of a research article, formulate a clinical question using PICO patient, intervention, comparison, outcome). However, our competencies are more specific and extend to include the application of evidence, including through shared decision making, and evidence implementation at the individual clinical level. The set of EBP core competencies highlights the required level of detail needed (ie, mentioned, explained, and practiced with exercises) for each EBP competency as a proxy for the amount of time that should be dedicated to each.

Additionally, we view this set of EBP core competencies as a contemporary and dynamic set. As the field matures, new competencies will undoubtedly need to be added, and others removed. For instance, shared decision making and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach are 2 recent competencies that were not taught in EBP curricula previously. We plan to review this set periodically and welcome any feedback. With the increased availability of trustworthy preappraised evidence resources, clinicians can practice EBP without being fully competent in detailed critical appraisal of individual studies.

Rbt Competency Study Guide

What they must know, however, is how to critically interpret and apply the results presented in these preappraised sources., This full understanding is necessary to trade off desirable and undesirable consequences, particularly when they are closely balanced. Furthermore, shared decision making requires clearly communicating about the trade-offs with patients. However, clinicians may still sometimes need to critically appraise individual studies (for example, when there are no trusted preappraised resources that answer a clinical question, or when a new study challenges their current practice). In addition, skills in critical appraisal are helpful in determining the trustworthiness of preappraised evidence. The core competencies should be suitable to inform the curricula for an introductory course in EBP for clinicians of any level of education and any discipline.

The competencies provide building blocks for EBP educators to use to develop their own curriculum, tailored to local learning needs, time availability, discipline, and the previous EBP experience of the learners. Competencies are unlikely to be exhaustive or tailored to the specific needs of any one discipline. However, some of the competencies might be more relevant to one discipline than another (eg, diagnosis is more relevant to the discipline of medicine than to others). The order of the EBP core competencies in the set does not reflect the order of their importance or sequence in teaching. Educators can modify their approach to teaching these competencies based on case-based scenarios or articles, and it is likely that optimal communication of competencies will require teaching in more than one setting using a number of different scenarios and/or articles. For example, a teaching session can be initiated using an equivocal risk-benefit balance case scenario and teaching the shared decision-making skills needed, providing patient decision aids where possible. Then, teachers can explain the evidence incorporated into the decision aids and the derivation and interpretation of quantities, such as absolute risk difference and number needed to treat or harm.

Educators and curriculum developers in EBP are encouraged to evaluate the content of their current curriculum and integrate these competencies into it. Educators may find mapping core competencies to existing curricula will allow identification of any gaps in the coverage of essential content. Programs can address other additional advanced competencies (eg, implementation science, economic analysis) depending on the needs and desires of their learners. This set of core competencies in EBP represents just one of several needed steps for the implementation of competency-based EBP education. Dissemination and integration of this set of core competencies in academic and clinical practice may assist in delivering a more uniform and harmonized education to EBP learners. Open access online databases of learning resources (eg, the Critical Thinking and Appraisal Resource Library CARL) represent an important resource to enhance the sharing and accessibility of learning resources relevant for the EBP core competencies.

The development of appropriate assessment tools to evaluate the identified EBP competencies is challenging but useful for monitoring learners’ progress in each of the competencies or evaluating the effectiveness of different teaching methods. A systematic review of 85 studies evaluating EBP educational interventions found that more than half of the included studies did not use a psychometrically robust, high-quality instrument to measure their outcomes (L.A., P.G., T.H., unpublished data, 2018). Therefore, EBP education researchers should identify, and if necessary develop, specific assessment tools (both formative and summative) that provide accurate, reliable, and timely evaluation of the EBP competencies of learners. Future work should also focus on defining core competencies needed for each training level and comparing different modalities (including the sequence) when teaching these competencies. Article Information Accepted for Publication: March 26, 2018.

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the. © 2018 Albarqouni L et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Dr, Robina, Queensland, 4229, Australia. Author Contributions: Drs Albarqouni and Hoffmann had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Concept and design: Albarqouni, Hoffmann, Straus, Olsen, Young, Ilic, Shaneyfelt, Glasziou. Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Albarqouni, Hoffmann, Straus, Young, Ilic, Shaneyfelt, Haynes, Guyatt, Glasziou. Drafting of the manuscript: Albarqouni, Hoffmann, Straus, Ilic, Haynes, Glasziou. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Albarqouni.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Albarqouni, Hoffmann, Straus, Ilic, Shaneyfelt, Glasziou. Supervision: Hoffmann, Glasziou. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Albarqouni reported grants from the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship during the conduct of the study. Dr Hoffmann reported personal fees from Elsevier outside the submitted work.

Dr Glasziou reported membership on the board of the International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care. No other disclosures were reported. Funding/Support: Dr Albarqouni is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Additional Contributions: We gratefully acknowledge Andy Oxman, MD, and the International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care board members for their feedback on the set and the Delphi participants for their contribution.

Dr Oxman did not receive any compensation for his assistance.