Introduction
Implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) leads to change, and it is crucial to understand its impact and achievements. Assessment is a critical part of measuring progress and results obtained. Traditionally, two types of assessments are distinguished – formative and summative (Bin Mubayrik, 2020). The current paper compares both approaches, their objectives, and potential applications in the EBP project aimed at preventing central line-associated bloodstream infections. Even though formative and summative assessments application have different purposes and features, it is crucial to use both these approaches for one EBP project simultaneously.
Assessment of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation
Formative and summative assessments include various measures, which are used depending on the circumstances. La Chimea et al. (2020) unite both approaches when describing assessment techniques and mention multiple-choice questions, objective-structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), tests, exams, simulations, and other measures. Their research focuses significantly on educational settings, and while the EBP includes elements of employee training, it is also essential to consider that the project takes place in a clinical setting. Elwy et al. (2020) investigate the features of formative assessment when implementing changes in the hospital and note that this approach uses the same methods as the summative one. Researchers include such measures as interviews, task monitoring, exploring patients’ outcomes, and stakeholder surveys (Elwy et al., 2020). It is essential to understand approaches’ features to choose the proper technique for the EBP.
Formative and summative approaches to evaluation have differences that affect their application. According to Elwy et al. (2020), while the methods may be the same for different types of assessment, the timing and purpose of using the obtained data are different. Formative techniques are used during the project by the team responsible for its implementation to adapt and improve the process (Elwy et al., 2020). Assessment of this type is considered a continuous process; therefore, various measures are taken several times to monitor performance (Bin Mubayrik, 2020). Summative measures, in turn, are taken at the end of the project to explore what results have been obtained (Bin Mubayrik, 2020). Each of these approaches will be useful for the EBP, make it more productive, and help assess the achievement of goals.
Different assessment measures will be applied depending on the EBP phase. Using a formative approach, a suitable technique is to regularly monitor nurses’ compliance with the rules regarding catheter placement during the project implementation. This measure will allow tracking progress and gradual improvement in practice. Following the summative approach, tests will be applied after the project, checking the competence of nurses to comply with infection prevention protocols. This technique will help understand whether the goals of EBP have been achieved and whether employees have received the necessary knowledge and skills. Therefore, the EBP project needs both formative and summative assessments.
Conclusion
Thus, the assessment is an integral part of implementing the EBP. Its two types, formative and summative, can use the same methods to collect data, but their goals differ. Measures may include interviews, tests, exams, surveys, and other forms. The formative approach is needed to control and improve processes during project implementation. Summative methods are used to assess achievements after transformations are completed. Given their features, both types of assessments will benefit the EBP project. The formative technique of monitoring the execution of tasks during implementation will help make the process more efficient. Summative tests will assess the results and compliance with the set goals.
References
Bin Mubayrik, H. F. (2020). New trends in formative-summative evaluations for adult education. SAGE Open, 1-13.
Elwy, A. R., Wasan, A. D., Gillman, A. G., Johnston, K. L., Dodds, N., McFarland, C., & Greco, C. M. (2020). Using formative evaluation methods to improve clinical implementation efforts: description and an example. Psychiatry Research, 283, 1-6.
La Chimea, T., Kanji, Z., & Schmitz, S. (2020). Assessment of clinical competence in competency-based education. Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene, 54(2), 83-91.