Evaluation of quality nursing: pros and cons of EBN from a systematic review

Journal title RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione
Author/s Sabrina Spagnuolo, Serenella Stasi
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2017/67 Language Italian
Pages 21 P. 24-44 File size 481 KB
DOI 10.3280/RIV2017-067003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The health system was reorganized in key best companies. They are introduced to the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency that has made quality the primary objective to be pursued in the delivery of health care. The quality is evaluated today starting through the Evidence Based Nursing that represents the extension, in the nursing field, Evidence Based Medicine. In the article we performed a systematic review of meta-analyzes in order to identify critical issues and good practice and see how the EBN in addition to theoretically enrich the discipline to answer the fundamental question underlying assessment using this approach.

Keywords: Evidence Based Nursing; Quality Nursing Care; Systematic Review; Pluralist Approach; Best Practice; Meta-Analysis.

  1. Argyris C., Schon D., (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading MA: Addison Wesley. (tr. it. L’apprendimento organizzativo. Milano: Guerini e associati, 1998.)
  2. Bardelloni, Barbini, Nante, (2008). Gli strumenti per la valutazione della qualità dell’assistenza infermieristica. Mondo Sanitario, 3:1-7.
  3. Burrows D.E., & McLeish K., (1995). A model for research-based practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing 4: pp. 243-247.
  4. Forsst K., Marra M., Schawartz R., (eds) (2011) Evaluating the Complex. Attribution, Contribution and Beyond, Transaction Pubblischers, Sommerset, NJ.
  5. Hunt J.M. (1996) Guest editorial. Journal of Advanced Nursing 23, pp. 423-425.
  6. ISTAT Rapporto annuale 2015. La situazione del paese.
  7. ISTAT 2015 Le dimensioni della salute in Italia determinanti sociali, politiche sanitarie e differenze territoriali.
  8. Kitson A., Ahmed L.B., Harvey G., Seers K. & Thompson D.R.(1996). From research to practice: one organisational model for promoting research-based practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing 23: pp 430-440.
  9. Leone L., et al. (2017) Misure di contrasto della povertà e condizionalità. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  10. Liberati A. et al (2015), PRISMA Statement per il reporting di revisioni sistematiche e meta-analisi degli studi che valutano gli interventi sanitari: spiegazione ed elaborazione, Evidence 7(6)
  11. Lipsey M., (2000). Statistical Conclusion validity for intervention research: a Significant (P< .05) problem. In: Bickman L. (a cura di) Validity and social experimentation,Vol 1 Di Donald Campbell’s legacy. Sage: Thousand Oaks CA.
  12. Martini A., Trivellato (2011) Sono soldi ben spesi?. Venezia:Marsilio.
  13. Pawson R., (2006) Evidence-Based politics: A realist perspective. London: Sage.
  14. Pawson R., Tilley N., (1997). Realistic evaluation. London:Sage.
  15. Perrin B.,(2007). Towards a new view of accountability. In : Bemelmans-Videc M.L.,Lonsdale J., Perrin B. (A cura di), Making Accountability Work. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  16. Petticrew e Roberts (2006) Systematic Review in the social science, Oxford: Blackwell.
  17. Zimmermann B., Lindemberg C., Plsek P.,(1998) Edgeware: Complxity resources for Healthcare Leaders, VHA Publishing, Irving, TX.
  18. Weiss C., (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory. In: Connell J., Kubish A., Schorr L.B., Weiss C., (a cura di) New approaches to evaluating community initiaiitves. New York: Aspen Institute.
  19. Tomei G., (2016) Valutare gli outcame dei programmi complessi. Approcci, Metodologie e tecniche Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  20. Stern E., (2016) La valutazione di impatto. Una guida per committenti e manager preparata per Bond. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  21. Stame N., (2010) What does not work ? Three failures and many answers, Evaluation, Vol 16, 4: 371-387, DOI: 10.1177/135638901038191
  22. Stame N., (2012) Fare di più e meglio con meno, e in modo democratico, Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione, 53-54: 33-45, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2012-05300
  23. Stame N., (2016) Valutazione Pluralista Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  24. Savedoff et al (2006), Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation, Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group When, testo disponibile al sito: https://www.cgdev.org/files/7973_file_WillWeEverLearn.pdf, 13/03/2016
  25. Rogers, P.,J., (2008), Using programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspecs of Interventions, Evaluation, January, vol. 14, 1
  26. Rogers P., Williams B., (2006). Evaluation for practice improvment and organizational learning. In: Shaw I. S., Green G.C., Mark M.M., (a cura di), Handbook of evaluation. London: Sage.

Sabrina Spagnuolo, Serenella Stasi, La valutazione della qualità dell’assistenza infermieristica: pro e contro dell’EBN a partire da una revisione sistematica in "RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione" 67/2017, pp 24-44, DOI: 10.3280/RIV2017-067003