Clinical Excellence Revisited
During this week’s you will focus on revisiting clinical excellence completed in the past
weeks starting from step
Step 1, Asses the need for practice change
Step 2, Locate the best evidence
Step 3, critically analyze the best evidence
Step 3, Synthesize the best evidence.
Step 3, Feasibility, Benefits, and Risk.
Building on work done in the clinical practicum setting and looking toward work with
the EBP, address these questions:
- How does your work done with Steps 1-3 of the Change Model link back to clinical
excellence? - What key outcome factors or variables will you focus on as you design your practice
change? - How might you evaluate the impact of your practice change to ensure you are
working toward quality and clinical excellence?
Clinical Excellence Revisited
- How does your work done with Steps 1–3 of the Change Model link back to clinical
excellence?
By assessing the need for practice, I have learnt identified the erroneous believes of the
healthcare providers on patient behavioural change to effectively manage Diabetes Type 2.
This hinders clinical excellence in that it fails to address patient care holistically. This
change model step is important because it facilitates in the identification of clinical
experiences that fail to promote clinical excellence (Inzucchi, et al., 2015).
The second step of analysis of diabetes enables me to understand that diabetes is a chronic
disease that needs effective coping interventions. The synthesis of the evidence based
practice identifies patient education as the great platform for ensuring lifestyle modification.
Clinical Excellence Revisited
2
Additionally, patient education is important as it addresses all components of healthy living
as it addresses patient specific needs such as nutritional requirements, benefits of medication
adherence as well as the pharmacodynamics that could be attributable to drug interaction,
especially among paediatric and geriatric patients. These are essential components that
promote clinical excellence (Steinsbekk, et al., 2012).
Additionally, this change link model enables one to identify the potential barriers that are
associated with the proposed changes. Through this model, I have identified that
communication barrier is one of the main issue, which could result to staff resistance.
Additionally, this type of change requires commitment in terms of skills and resources, which
are the main challenge in this proposed study (Kayshap et al., 2013).
- What key outcome factors or variables will you focus on as you design your practice
change?
Designing this practice is not an easy task because it is subject to confounding values such as
change in patient medication regimen which could influence the biochemical outcome.
Additionally, it can be challenging having non-educated control group. In this context, the
study design will focus on comparing special (evidenced based practice) education with the
basic care education among the patient diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. Evidence based
practice indicates that there are few long term effects on patient with self-management
education program. One of such programs is the X-PERT (expert patient education) self-
management education program, which is associated with empowering patients with the
necessary skills, helping the patients to benefit in terms of the biomedical and psychosocial
outcomes (Inzucchi, et al., 2012).
The outcome variables that will be evaluated in this context includes the biomedical
outcomes (includes Blood pressure, cholesterol level, HDL, LDL, glycated haemoglobin,
weight as well as the waist circumference); the illness perception questionnaire, lifestyle
Clinical Excellence Revisited
3
questions, smoking status, emotional distress which is specific to diabetes will be evaluated.
This will help determine the overall effect of the patient perceptions, their understanding
about diabetes, and their perception on their ability to manage diabetes (personal control)
(Steinsbekk, et al., 2012).
- How might you evaluate the impact of your practice change to ensure you are
working toward quality and clinical excellence?
It is vital to analyse the impact the proposed practice facilitates towards sustaining quality
clinical excellence. This is because most of the practice conducted patient educations have
not been conclusive; as each of self-management strategies have its own advantages as well
as disadvantages. In this context, the evaluation will be made by comparing the results with
other studies. This will facilitate in the identification of the active components that contribute
towards clinical excellence. Additionally, it will help evaluate the outcome of goal setting
when conducting education on self-management in people diagnosed with diabetes (Kayshap
et al., 2013).
Clinical Excellence Revisited
4
References
Inzucchi, S. E., Bergenstal, R. M., Buse, J. B., Diamant, M., Ferrannini, E., Nauck, M., … &
Matthews, D. R. (2012). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-
centered approach position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA)
and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes
care, 35(6), 1364-1379.
Inzucchi, S. E., Bergenstal, R. M., Buse, J. B., Diamant, M., Ferrannini, E., Nauck, M., … &
Matthews, D. R. (2015). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a
patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes
Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes
Care, 38(1), 140-149.
Kashyap, S. R., Bhatt, D. L., Wolski, K., Watanabe, R. M., Abdul-Ghani, M., Abood, B., …
& Kirwan, J. P. (2013). Metabolic Effects of Bariatric Surgery in Patients With
Moderate Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Analysis of a randomized control trial
comparing surgery with intensive medical treatment.Diabetes care, 36(8), 2175-2182.
Steinsbekk, A., Rygg, L., Lisulo, M., Rise, M. B., & Fretheim, A. (2012). Group based
diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment for people with
type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC health
services research, 12(1), 213.