Relation of Evidence-Based Practice to the Quadruple Aim
The implications of evidence-based practice to improving the health workers’ experience cannot be ignored. While the quadruple aim requires workers find meaning and joy while delivering health services, evidence-based practice promotes teamwork that potentially culminates in improved work experience among health professionals. In particular, while engaging in EBP, health professionals formulate clinical questions pertaining to a disease, search for evidence regarding the disease from existing studies and analyze the evidence before providing recommendations on appropriate approaches to the disease in question (Crabtree et al., 2016). The active process involved in seeking information regarding the disease and analyzing reliable evidence from studies makes evaluation of the patient, diagnosis and management more involving to the health worker, resulting in significantly improved work experience.
Worth-noting, EBP has a solid relation to patient experience. The final process in EBP includes providing recommendations pertaining to appropriate approaches to particular diseases. The health workers formulate recommendations in accordance with the clinical questions they had previously created (Crabtree et al., 2016). The significance of recommendations cannot be overlooked since they dictate the criteria for facilities’ admission and emergency departments order sets. A properly structured admission or emergency department leads to non-disrupted service flow and improved patient experience, which is a noteworthy tenet of the quadruple aim (Sikka, Morath & Leape, 2015). For instance, in emergency departments, triaging enables the clinician to respond to patients with more critical health needs with priority, thereby reducing morbidity and mortality.
Evidence Based Practice contributes to a better overall population health in remarkable manners. The rigorous process in EBP ensures that health care is provided to patients according to the most highly effective strategies existing in current research. This approach ensures that health workers meet the population’s health needs effectively, lowering the risks of developing complications from particular illnesses (Sikka, Morath & Leape, 2015). Besides, applying the most effective approaches improves the quality of life among patients, significantly reducing the suffering from the disease and in the long-term reducing morbidity and mortality from disease processes. Overall, the health of populations served by health workers using EBP improves significantly.
Worth noting, the effect of EBP on costs of healthcare cannot be overemphasized. Formulating key questions pertaining to particular diseases drives the health worker to approach the illness from specific angles, avoiding generalized approaches (Crabtree et al., 2016). Also, the specific questions applied in seeking evidence from existing research guarantees provision of disease-specific plans, which culminate in application of the most successful interventions. Overall, disease-specific interventions lower the amount of resources that would be unnecessarily spent, reducing the costs of health care (Sikka, Morath & Leape, 2015). For instance, where illnesses require imaging, the clinician would suggest the imaging modality with a higher diagnostic success, ultimately lowering the number of imaging tests required to diagnose disease.
In summary, evidence-based practice is linked to the quadruple aim in diverse manners. EBP enables clinicians to successfully attain the tenets of the quadruple aim. These facts have been well-discussed in this paper.
Relation of Evidence-Based Practice to the Quadruple Aim References
Crabtree, E., Brennan, E., Davis, A., & Coyle, A. (2016). Improving Patient Care Through Nursing Engagement in Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(2), 172–175. doi:10.1111/wvn.12126
Sikka, R., Morath, J. M., & Leape, L. (2015). The quadruple aim: Care, health, cost and meaning in work. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(10), 608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004160