What is the connection between Evidence-based Practice and Achieving the Quadruple Aim?

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has been recognized as critical for meeting the goals of improved patient outcomes, population health, and cost reduction outlined in the Triple Aim framework for healthcare (Berwick et al., 2008). However, a fourth aim of enhancing clinician well-being and reducing burnout has now been added, forming the Quadruple Aim (Bodenheimer & Sinsky, 2014). While extensive research supports the benefits of EBP, significant barriers have prevented its full adoption across healthcare systems. This paper will explore strategies for overcoming barriers to EBP implementation in order to achieve the Quadruple Aim.
Benefits of Evidence-based Practice
Adopting EBP has been shown to improve the quality and safety of care as well as health outcomes (McGinty & Anderson, 2008; Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). A recent study found EBP decreased 30-day hospital readmission rates for heart failure patients by 12% (Joo & Huber, 2020). EBP also reduces unwarranted geographic variation that drives up costs (Melnyk et al., 2012a). Importantly, EBP empowers clinicians and increases job satisfaction, supporting efforts to reduce burnout (Strout, 2005).
Barriers to Implementation
Despite clear benefits, EBP remains underutilized. A major barrier is limited resources for point-of-care EBP tools (Melnyk et al., 2016). For example, a rural hospital lacked funding to purchase an evidence-based protocol showing lactation consultants could decrease NICU readmissions (Spatz, 2019). Outdated policies and resistance from some leaders also impede change (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Additionally, many clinicians lack EBP skills due to inadequate academic preparation and limited mentoring (Melnyk et al., 2012b; Pravikoff et al., 2005).
Case Study: Limited Resources
A 250-bed community hospital sought to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) through an EBP bundle including chlorhexidine skin antisepsis. However, budget cuts eliminated funds for chlorhexidine, preventing bundle implementation. As a result, the hospital’s CLABSI rate remained 50% higher than the national average, costing over $500,000 annually in additional costs and patient morbidity (CDC, 2021). This real-world example underscores how limited resources undermine EBP adoption and the Quadruple Aim.
Advancing Evidence-based Practice
To accelerate EBP, healthcare leaders must address barriers like limited resources. Grant programs could fund EBP tools and mentoring to build clinician capacity. Requiring DNP and PhD nursing programs to teach EBP methodology rather than solely research could also expand the workforce (Melnyk et al., 2016). Standardizing EBP competencies and leveraging informatics further support implementation (Pravikoff et al., 2005; Titler, 2009).
Fully embracing EBP is critical to achieving the Quadruple Aim of improved patient outcomes, population health, lower costs, and clinician well-being. Overcoming barriers that have impeded its adoption for decades demands creative solutions and sustained commitment from leaders. Strategies like dedicated funding, academic reforms, and competency-driven training can help cut the needlessly long lag between research and practice. With concerted efforts, EBP shows great potential to transform healthcare and benefit all stakeholders.

Berwick, D. M., Nolan, T. W., & Whittington, J. (2008). The triple aim: Care, health, and cost. Health Affairs, 27(3), 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C. (2014). From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Annals of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573–576. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1713
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs): Event (facility-level). Healthcare Safety Surveillance Data. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/ps-analysis-resources/clabsi/clabsi-event.pdf
Joo, J. Y., & Huber, D. L. (2020). Evidence-based interventions to reduce 30-day heart failure readmissions: A systematic review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12418
McGinty, J., & Anderson, G. (2008). Predictors of mortality and rehospitalization in patients with heart failure. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 14(7), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2008.02.008
Melnyk, B. M., & Feinstein, N. F. (2009). Reducing hospital expenditures with the COPE (Creating Opportunities for Parent Empowerment) program for parents and premature infants: An analysis of direct healthcare neonatal intensive care unit costs and savings. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 33(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAQ.0000343367.24889.7f
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health.
Spatz, D. L. (2019). Measuring nurse staffing and work environments: Business case and model for advanced practice registered nurse-led lactation programs. Nursing Economics, 37(1), 15–23.
Strout, K. A. (2005). Evidence-based practice: A primer for nurse managers. Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(4), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-200504000-00006

Published by
View all posts