Table of ContentsWeaknessesStrengthsImplications of the EBP Study on Nursing PracticesThe practice of applying research findings to health service delivery is essential to ensure improvement in health care and patient outcomes. Over time, nursing science has continued to improve in depth and breadth, paving the way for evidence to guide our practices in areas such as pressure ulcer prevention, pain management and transitional care, among others. The application of this scientific knowledge, however, has proven difficult when it comes to its application in different fields. To overcome the final hurdle in translation, it is necessary to promote the adoption and use of research findings at the point where health services are delivered (Avorn, 2010). We have seen nurses strive to integrate the use of evidence into their practices. Nonetheless, the struggle to provide quality care and improve health care outcomes has historically been viewed as failing because it is prone to delays when scientific discoveries do not reach patients in time (Doughety and Conway, 2008). Say no to plagiarism. . Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay EBP is a very essential part of quality care. It refers to the judicious use of the best empirical evidence in conjunction with clinical expertise as well as patient value in guiding health care decisions (Sackett et al., 2000). In contrast to this, implementation science refers to the process of reviewing the ever-changing methods, implications, and factors that influence the adoption of evidence-based practices by authorities. Therefore, the integration of evidence in the provision of health services is what is known as EBP, while translation science refers to the study of how to promote the use of evidence in medications. The extent to which adoption of EBPs occurs depends on how the EBP is communicated to involved and affected parties in the context of practice and the type of evidence-based topic (Titler, 2011). Certain principles guide the use of evidence-based practices in nursing. They include: taking into account the context and engagement of health personnel as well as improving evidence. The second principle is that there must be an illustration through quantitative or qualitative data from the context. The third principle refers to the need for an organization to invest in the skills and tools necessary to achieve a culture of evidence-based practice by encouraging questions and systems that facilitate good action. The fourth principle is that it is necessary to address the context of the practice and the step-by-step implementation of the process must also be addressed. The last principle refers to the need to evaluate the process and results of implementation. Weaknesses All clinical, biomedical and general care providers still need solid evidence. However, the type of robust evidence that can be applied to all patients and healthcare settings is not available today for most medications. It is claimed that more than half of medical treatments are not yet validated by medical trials. A committee of the American Institute of Medicine says there is no evidencestrong to modest for only about 4% of services offered, while more than 50% of facilities lack evidence or are extremely weak (Titler, 2011). The intensification of clinical services and research has been observed in recent years with the further increase in technology. However, the spectrum of diseases has also expanded, indicating a large research gap. There is a major challenge in developing a systematic review of clinical and healthcare topics. Furthermore, the available proofs are rarely infinitive. Whether there is confidence in certain evidence depends largely on the robustness of the research and the quality and quantity of analysis and synthesis carried out on it (Avorn, 2010). Users are always known to arrive at a personal judgment on the quality of a practice, technology, and the science behind a certain work. Personal judgment can differ significantly due to the complexity and lack of bias in which it has been constructed. This may occur by disputing the most applicable evidence for the assessment, reviewing only some available evidence, disagreeing on inclusion factors such as cost and patient satisfaction in diagnosis, treatment or even the effectiveness of a method; and differ regarding the quality of the evidence. Such disagreements can then cause public concern, indicating that there is something wrong with the evidence or that even the experts had vested interests and therefore cannot be trusted. the size, robustness and credibility of the available evidence. In this sense, there is the incorporation of the judgment on the quality of the study which involves the level of confidence one has as to whether a result is true and whether others have been able to detect the same result via the use of different studies or even different people. Other ideas used by doctors are: how close the result is to the idea, what is its effect and its applicability (Avorn, 2010). The methodology for judging the strength of available evidence uses the extent of internal validity to which studies have been carried out on a certain population and produce valid information. It also focuses on external validity, which refers to the extent to which studies are relevant and how well studies can be generalized to serve a broader patient population. Consistency or coherence refers to the extent to which a piece of evidence makes sense with the fundamental prototype of the medical condition (Eccles and Mittman, 2006). Strong evidence is distinguished from other evidence by the magnitude of the effect or impact as reported. on research documents. It is not easy to confuse such data with the nature and extent of their effects and outcomes (Eccles and Mittman, 2006). Strong evidence is much more useful for careful clinical interventions than weak evidence, because its use leads to dramatic results in all cases. If such factors are taken into account, then the possibilities of harm are very minimal, giving this evidence an edge over others. Strength and quality are linked practically and conceptually. On the contrary, more consistent and consistent evidence has a higher advantage over others. Evidence related to the clinical case is most desirable. Indeed, such evidence necessarily makes more sense since its procedure of application to the situation in question can easily be followed and used to achieve the desired results. Nor is such evidence.