My organization is small and only collects the most basic data metrics for billing purposes and care plans. No centralized collection of this data occurs. Specific nursing assessments are requested by Ontario Health & Home for some clients annually, some a few times a year – but our work doesn’t keep the data, the front line nurse completes the form and then their supervisor sends it over.

I would love to see our agency start small, perhaps creating a working group for clients/their guardians, to be involved with sharing what is going well and not going well. What are the impacts of this nursing support from their perspective? I would love to see surveys given out to our clients to assess a variety of topics – tailored around themes that may come out of the working groups.

The way our caseloads are structured I would need the care managers and the front line nurses to champion the project. We would have to standardize some of the language to quantify some of the themes and others would be left open-ended for themes to evolve post transcription evaluation. Our sampling would be small, and many of the clients are minors so consent presents some challenges. Working alongside their families would be essential. Anonymity would be a challenge so if resources were not an issue I would love to have a third party collect the results and process the data for themes to protect the clients.

Once themes are evaluated and revealed, then we would be able to discern what the impacts of nursing support (or lack there of) are for the student and begin to steer the conversation towards practice implications and improvements.

This area of research is such a blank slate, I can’t wait to see how it evolves over time!

Hi Everyone,
When I worked in long-term care, there were a variety of indicators that collect data on resident safety and quality of life.
There were quarterly resident assessments interviews, medication reviews, and care plan reviews.
There was regular team meetings and shift reports.
The quarterly resident assessments were done alongside a nurse whom headed the department. It would be an interview between the department head and the Registered Practical Nurse in charge of that unit on any given shift.
Residents also were allowed to give written feedback using a suggestion box as well as verbal feedback to nursing staff and their family members. Family members also gave regular verbal feedback.
Since I am not currently working in the sector, if I were to proceed with this research topic and collect raw data, after getting ethics board approval, I would approach this in a variety of ways:
I would submit a research proposal to a variety of care homes within the province.
I would want to interview nursing staff, managers, residents and family members using pre-written questions and keep the focus on their values and opinions on resident safety and quality of life.
I would like the sample size to represent care homes with varying ownership statuses.
I would like to create a quality indicator tool that would not only help answer the research question but also help to create proposed staffing models for recommendations to practice.
The quality indicator tool would need to be versatile enough to apply to nursing staff, managers, residents, and families, whilst protecting privacy and providing anonymity.
Thank you!
Megan S

At my multi-site hospital, we are affiliated with Western University and supported by a dedicated research department. Several data sources could inform my research on whether structured peer support and debriefing programs reduce PTSD and burnout symptoms in frontline healthcare workers exposed to traumatic clinical events. Currently, the organization collects data through employee wellness surveys, occupational health reports, and incident reporting systems. These datasets often include self-reported stress levels, absenteeism, and turnover rates.
Data collection methods vary. Staff wellness is typically assessed through periodic anonymous surveys administered by Human Resources or the Occupational Health department. Participation in structured programs is tracked by the hospital’s wellness team. Additionally, qualitative data may be gathered through focus groups or post-event debriefing feedback forms. The research department also supports studies using validated tools like the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) or PTSD Checklist (PCL-5), which could be leveraged for this project.
To collect the data required for my research, I would first collaborate with the research department and occupational health leaders to access existing datasets and determine any gaps. If necessary, I would design a mixed-methods study involving both quantitative surveys (e.g., MBI, PCL-5) and qualitative interviews. Participants would include frontline staff who have experienced traumatic events, with one group having participated in structured support programs and a comparison group without formal support. Ethical approval would be obtained through the hospital’s Research Ethics Board, and confidentiality would be strictly maintained. This approach would allow for a comprehensive analysis of the impact of peer support and debriefing on psychological outcomes.

Hi Marissa,
It sounds like there is already existing data within your organization that would support your research topic. Using assessment tools which are already evidence-based to be effective , I think is a great idea.
I’m wondering if there would be assessment tools available to support my research topic if it were to move forward. I recall we had various assessment tools that we used when assessing a change in condition of a resident. Initially I thought my research topic would be more qualitative, however your discussion post has encouraged me to look at the potential to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. You mentioned if there were gaps in the data, that you might consider a mixed-methods study.
The qualitative interviews sounds like a great balance of data collection methods. How would you structure the questions?
Thanks!
Megan S

For our research project titled “Enhancing Research Education in Ontario Practical Nursing Programs: Bridging the Gap for Evidence-Based Practice,” the data we need to answer our research question focuses on identifying gaps in Practical Nursing (PN) curricula and exploring how Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) apply research and evidence in their clinical practice.

Within my organization, Chatham-Kent Health Alliance (CKHA), there are several forms of data currently collected that could indirectly help answer our research question. CKHA collects ongoing education and training records, competency assessments, and professional development participation data for nursing staff. These data reflect nurses engagement in learning, evidence-informed training, and educational purposes, which aligns with our research focus on readiness for evidence-based practice. Additionally, incident reports, quality improvement metrics, and continuing education completion rates provide insight into how research knowledge is, or isn’t, being applied in clinical decision-making.

At CKHA, data is primarily collected through digital learning systems called Elearnings, annual performance evaluations, and departmental education audits. Much of this information is aggregated by the Professional Practice team to track compliance with regulatory standards.

For our study, we plan to collect primary data through a mixed-methods approach using Qualtrics surveys for PN educators and semi-structured interviews for practicing RPNs. The Scientific Research Competency Scale (SRCS) will be administered to measure perceived research competency across four domains: technical skills, attitudes and behaviours, estimation capacity, and language proficiency. The qualitative interviews will explore participants lived experiences and perceived preparedness to apply evidence in practice. This combination of organizational insights and firsthand participant data will help us build a clearer picture of the current state of research education for Ontario’s RPNs and identify areas for improvement.