Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change

In last week’s discussion, you explored a situation in which a patent’s preference was incorporated in the plan of care. You also began working on your assignment for this module, in which you recommend a change in practice based on evidence you have located in your searches. In this assignment, you will develop a PowerPoint presentation. Some of what you will include are a description of the readiness of your organization for change, your plan for introducing this evidence-based practice and the expected outcomes.

Critical Appraisal

Name

Department/Institution

Course

Instructor

Due Date

Critical Appraisal

Introduction

Opiate overdose usage has been a significant health issue, which has led to increased deaths and illness among consumers globally (Clark, Wilder and Winstanley, 2014). In recent years there has been increased hospitalization due to the increased usage of illicit drugs that have increased in the United States. The addictive usage of illicit drugs/opioids as relievers has made humans more reliant on the drugs to relieve pain. However, opioid deaths and overdose can be lowered through effective and managed administration through community-based programs that will reduce the usage of opioids. Considerably, programs that have offered naloxone to opiate consumers have been effective in establishing strategies that reduce overdose deaths. They have relied on the naloxone programs and community-based programs for the prevention of opioid use to reduce the deaths and save lives (Clark, Wilder and Winstanley, 2014).

With reference to the four articles, naloxone distribution and community-based programs is the best practice to reduce overdose death. Relatively, there is a difference between the opioid users that have access to naloxone and those who have no access to naloxone programs. The articles have indicated different strategies that have been used by intervention agencies to lower the damaging impacts of opiate use. Coffin and Sullivan (2013) relied on a model to assess the cost-efficiency of naloxone supply (decision-analytic and Markov Model).

Clark, Wilder, and Winstanely (2014) banked on systematic review in which studies were obtained from online databases such as PubMed and Medline. The eligibility criteria include the demographics and clinical characteristics of the participants in the different studies with regard to the topic of research. McAuley, Aucott, and Matheson, (2015) focused systematic review but with a vivid meta-analysis to evaluate the value of take-home naloxone programs. Each study was determined by peer administered consumption of naloxone.

Nielsen and Van Hout, M. C. (2016), on the other hand, used a scoping review in determining what people recognize regarding the strategies of community distribution of naloxone. The eligibility criteria of the articles included important words such as community pharmacy, opioid overdose avoidance, and opioid overdose. Additionally, the studies had to extensively describe the supply of naloxone and the effectiveness of naloxone distribution.

Considerably, the systematic review is considered as a tool that analyses studies and offers results after comparing the research process and data analysis from different studies that have been carried out with regards to the topic of research. After the collection of relevant studies from the stated topic, a meta-analysis is conducted to determine the quality of the articles in terms of the level of evidence (McAuley, Aucott and Matheson, 2015). This statistical method is essential in offering a pooled estimate of the quality of these studies. This method is essential in appraising the most available evidence through collecting and summarizing the results of the various studies.

Conclusion

In summation, the systematic review and meta-analysis offer a high level of evidence for contemporary studies. The systematic review will enable an effective collection of studies, while the meta-analysis allows evaluation of the quality and precise data amid the various studies. This approach is essential since it overcomes the issues with analyzing different randomized controlled trials. The level of evidence for the research will yield more powerful results from the systematic review and meta-analysis.

References

Clark, A. K., Wilder, C. M., & Winstanley, E. L. (2014). A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs. Journal of addiction medicine, 8(3), 153-163.

Coffin, P. O., & Sullivan, S. D. (2013). Cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to heroin users for lay overdose reversal. Annals of internal medicine, 158(1), 1-9.

McAuley, A., Aucott, L., & Matheson, C. (2015). Exploring the life-saving potential of naloxone: a systematic review and descriptive meta-analysis of take-home naloxone (THN) programs for opioid users. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(12), 1183-1188.

Nielsen, S., & Van Hout, M. C. (2016). What is known about the community pharmacy supply of naloxone? A scoping review. International Journal of Drug Policy, 32, 24-33