In order to formulate your evidence-based practice (EBP), you need to assess your organization. In this assignment, you will be responsible for setting the stage for EBP. This assignment is conducted in two parts: an organizational cultural and readiness assessment and the proposal/problem statement and literature review, which you completed in NUR-550.
Section A: Organizational Culture and Readiness Assessment
It is essential to understand the culture of the organization in order to begin assessing its readiness for EBP implementation. Select an appropriate organizational culture survey tool and use this instrument to assess the organization’s readiness.
Develop an analysis of 250 words from the results of the survey, addressing your organization’s readiness level, possible project barriers and facilitators, and how to integrate clinical inquiry, providing strategies that strengthen the organization’s weaker areas.
Make sure to include the rationale for the survey category scores that were significantly high and low, incorporating details or examples. Explain how to integrate clinical inquiry into the organization.
Submit a summary of your results. The actual survey results do not need to be included.
Section B: Proposal/Problem Statement and Literature Review
In NUR-550 (see attachment for previous PICOT used), you developed a PICOT statement and literature review for a population quality initiative. In 500-750 words, include the following:
Refine your PICOT into a proposal or problem statement.
Provide a summary of the research you conducted to support your PICOT, including subjects, methods, key findings, and limitations.
Sample Solution
Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to this complex problem, but in order to move forward, we propose several methods that may incite change in the current system in place. Historically, pharmaceutical companies dictate pricing with no restrictions from Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal/State governments. The US government (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.) is the largest buyer of prescription drugs in the world, yet they have no say in the pricing of drugs. Our government also generally issues funds to these pharmaceutical companies for research and development, with substantial investments in the basic science that leads to new drug discoveries. For example, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol, which was then taken under agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb in 1993. In 10 years, the manufacturer earned $9 billion in revenue and paid the federal government $35 million in royalties (article). Although 75% of new innovative drugs are supported by federal funding, most consumers and payers are unable to afford these medications due to the unreasonable prices. (article) We propose for the United States government to have the ability to establish delegated sectors to negotiate drug prices. By giving the government some power in dictating cost, this could substantially lower introductory prices, annual costs, and which may reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients. For example, the government may establish a drugâs ceiling price similar to the Federal Ceiling Price program used by the Department of Veteran Affairs. They may also begin use of reference pricing, thus permitting the Department of Health and Human Services to set a benchmark price for clinically comparable drugs that are interchangeable. Though these changes may produce more cost-effective medication, a drawback may be the lack of market diversity. Rather than having one pharmaceutical company dictating the price, the federal government is dictating the price thus creating a lack of competition. Having one body dictate everything may create tensions between pharmaceutical companies and the government; thus, change might not be made at all.>
Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to this complex problem, but in order to move forward, we propose several methods that may incite change in the current system in place. Historically, pharmaceutical companies dictate pricing with no restrictions from Medicare, Medicaid, or Federal/State governments. The US government (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc.) is the largest buyer of prescription drugs in the world, yet they have no say in the pricing of drugs. Our government also generally issues funds to these pharmaceutical companies for research and development, with substantial investments in the basic science that leads to new drug discoveries. For example, the federal government spent $484 million developing the cancer drug Taxol, which was then taken under agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb in 1993. In 10 years, the manufacturer earned $9 billion in revenue and paid the federal government $35 million in royalties (article). Although 75% of new innovative drugs are supported by federal funding, most consumers and payers are unable to afford these medications due to the unreasonable prices. (article) We propose for the United States government to have the ability to establish delegated sectors to negotiate drug prices. By giving the government some power in dictating cost, this could substantially lower introductory prices, annual costs, and which may reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients. For example, the government may establish a drugâs ceiling price similar to the Federal Ceiling Price program used by the Department of Veteran Affairs. They may also begin use of reference pricing, thus permitting the Department of Health and Human Services to set a benchmark price for clinically comparable drugs that are interchangeable. Though these changes may produce more cost-effective medication, a drawback may be the lack of market diversity. Rather than having one pharmaceutical company dictating the price, the federal government is dictating the price thus creating a lack of competition. Having one body dictate everything may create tensions between pharmaceutical companies and the government; thus, change might not be made at all.>
