A message from your PDCs: From evidence to everyday care – research and the NMBI Code in general practice nursing

The purpose of this final article in our series is to explore the development of evidence-based practice (EBP), examine its relationship with the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI) Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics, and demonstrate how, as general practice nurses (GPNs), we can incorporate research into everyday primary care practice through practical examples, clinical audit, and continuous quality improvement (QI).

Why research matters in general practice nursing

GPNs work in one of the most dynamic areas of healthcare, delivering person-centred care across the lifespan while managing acute presentations, chronic disease, preventive healthcare, screening programmes, and health promotion. Sláintecare and integrated-care reform place this work within a wider objective of coordinated, person-centred care delivered increasingly through primary and community services.¹

As patient complexity increases and healthcare continues to evolve, the ability to provide safe, effective, and evidence-informed care has become a professional and ethical obligation rather than an aspiration. Research, therefore, supports contemporary nursing practice by enabling clinicians to evaluate, improve, and justify aspects of the care they provide.²

EBP is widely regarded as an important foundation of high-quality healthcare. Rather than relying solely on tradition, personal experience, or established routines, EBP integrates the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and the patient’s values and circumstances.^3,4 This approach supports clinical decisions by combining scientific evidence with the circumstances, priorities, and expectations of the individual receiving care.

Many nurses will recognise the phrase: ‘We’ve always done it this way’. Although long-standing clinical practices often arise from valuable experience, tradition alone cannot justify continuing an intervention when stronger evidence demonstrates that a safer or more effective alternative exists. Modern nursing therefore requires practitioners to question established routines, critically appraise emerging evidence, and adapt practice when research demonstrates improved patient outcomes.

Within Irish primary care, GPNs are well positioned to influence population health. Every patient encounter presents an opportunity to apply current evidence to improve clinical outcomes while ensuring care remains individualised. As autonomous practitioners, GPNs increasingly lead QI initiatives, undertake clinical audits, and contribute to multidisciplinary research that is designed to improve healthcare delivery.

Recognising the central importance of research, the NMBI Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics (2025) explicitly identifies research as a key component of professional nursing practice.² The NMBI Code incorporates professional guidance on ethical conduct in research that applies across nursing roles, including clinical practice, leadership, and education. It also requires registrants to maintain and develop professional competence and to use professional judgement in practice.^2,5 This reflects the growing expectation that registered nurses and midwives will not only implement evidence, but also contribute to its generation through audit, service evaluation, and QI initiatives.

For GPNs, research is therefore not confined to universities or specialist research centres. It is embedded within our everyday clinical practice. Activities such as reviewing vaccination uptake, evaluating diabetes outcomes, auditing cervical screening attendance, or assessing wound-healing protocols all contribute to improving the quality and safety of patient care. By embracing research as an integral component of professional practice, GPNs strengthen clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, and demonstrate the accountability and leadership expected of the nursing profession.

The evolution of EBP

For much of human history, healthcare was based largely on observation, experience, and tradition. Treatments were passed from one generation to the next with little objective evidence to support their effectiveness. Although many interventions undoubtedly benefited patients, others persisted for centuries despite causing harm because there was no systematic way of evaluating if they truly worked. Practices such as bloodletting, based on the ancient theory of balancing the body’s four humours, remained common well into the 19th century.⁶

The transition from tradition to scientific enquiry did not occur overnight. It evolved gradually through the work of pioneering clinicians who challenged accepted practice by asking simple but profound questions: ‘Does this intervention actually work?’ and ‘How can we know?’

In 1747, James Lind compared treatments for scurvy among sailors aboard HMS Salisbury by dividing 12 sailors into six groups of two. All ate the same diet but took a different supplement. Lind observed marked improvement in those receiving citrus fruit, an early example of comparative clinical investigation.⁷ Florence Nightingale later demonstrated how systematic collection, analysis, and presentation of mortality data among soldiers during the Crimean War could identify preventable causes of death and drive improvements in care, sanitation, and hospital design.⁸

In the 20th century, Archie Cochrane highlighted the importance of evaluating healthcare interventions and promoted rigorous evaluation of healthcare services. He believed that healthcare professionals had both an ethical and professional responsibility to provide treatments that had been shown to be effective.⁹ His work ultimately inspired the establishment of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993, a renowned international organisation dedicated to producing systematic reviews that synthesise evidence from multiple clinical studies. The 1948 Medical Research Council streptomycin trial became a landmark in the development of randomised controlled trials.¹⁰

The term and teaching model of evidence-based medicine were developed at McMaster University in the early 1990s, with Guyatt and colleagues emphasising critical appraisal and the use of evidence from clinical research in decision-making.⁴ David Sackett and colleagues refined the concept by defining evidence-based practice as the integration of three essential components:¹¹
✽ The best available research evidence
✽ The clinician’s expertise and professional judgement
✽ The patient’s preferences, values, and individual circumstances.

These developments established a principle that remains highly relevant to nursing – healthcare practice should be open to systematic questioning. However, not every clinical question can or should be answered by a randomised controlled trial. Qualitative research, observational studies, and mixed-methods approaches are essential for addressing questions concerning patient experience, professional behaviour, service organisation, implementation, and context.

The hierarchy of evidence

Not all research provides the same level of confidence. Some study designs are more susceptible to bias than others, meaning that as clinicians we must critically evaluate the quality of evidence before applying it to practice. Sackett et al’s hierarchy of evidence ranks research according to its methodological strength and risk of bias.¹¹

Understanding EBP in primary care

The word research can evoke images of university laboratories, pharmaceutical trials, or complex statistical analysis. While these are important components of healthcare research, they represent only a small part of the research undertaken to improve patient care. As a GPN, EBP is far more accessible. It occurs every day through clinical audits, QI initiatives, service evaluation, and the thoughtful application of emerging evidence to routine clinical practice.

Primary care provides important opportunities for research as it is a major setting for first-contact care and long-established relationships between clinicians and patients. Caring for people across the lifespan allows for the observation of patterns of illness, the monitoring of treatment outcomes, and the identification of opportunities to improve care.

Consequently, GPNs are well placed to contribute to evidence generation while simultaneously improving the quality and safety of clinical care. GPNs make many clinical decisions each day, many of which require interpreting and applying evolving evidence in the context of individual patient needs.

Importantly, EBP does not require GPNs to abandon clinical experience or professional judgement. It is not a separate activity undertaken outside clinical work; it is embedded within every consultation, assessment, and intervention. Research supports GPNs by enabling them to:
✽ Provide care that reflects current evidence rather than tradition
✽ Improve patient safety through systematic evaluation
✽ Identify unwarranted variation in practice
✽ Strengthen clinical decision-making
✽ Contribute to multidisciplinary service development
✽ Demonstrate professional accountability in accordance with the NMBI Code.

Perhaps most importantly, research gives nurses confidence. When clinical decisions are supported by robust evidence, GPNs can explain the rationale underpinning their recommendations, address misinformation with authority, and advocate more effectively for their patients.

Asking simple questions such as: ‘Are our patients receiving annual diabetic foot assessments?’;¹² ‘Why are some eligible women not attending for CervicalCheck?’;¹³ or ‘How can we improve childhood immunisation uptake?’¹⁴ can lead to meaningful improvements in our patient outcomes.

However, not every activity involving data collection constitutes research. Within primary care, GPNs frequently undertake activities such as clinical audit, service evaluation, and QI projects. Although these activities share many principles of research, their objectives differ. Understanding these differences is essential because each has different governance, ethical, and regulatory requirements.

RESEARCH: Research aims to generate new, generalisable, or transferable knowledge to answer or refine relevant questions.¹⁵ Examples include:
✽ Does a new wound dressing reduce healing time compared with standard care?
✽ What factors influence vaccine hesitancy among adults attending Irish general practice?
✽ Does continuous glucose monitoring improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes managed in primary care?

Depending on its design and purpose, research may require ethical review, formal protocols, and appropriate governance because findings may be intended to inform practice beyond the participating setting.

CLINICAL AUDIT: An established component of clinical effectiveness and governance. In Ireland, national clinical audit is defined as a cyclical process of systematic, structured review and evaluation against explicit clinical standards, followed by action where improvement is required.¹⁶

For example, a GPN may audit the earlier questions of whether patients with diabetes receive annual foot examinations;¹² eligible women are invited for CervicalCheck;¹³ influenza and childhood vaccination targets have been achieved;¹⁴ or blood pressure is recorded at recommended intervals for patients with hypertension. Practices should therefore consider undertaking clinical audit and how protected time can support completion of the audit cycle.

SERVICE EVALUATION: Service evaluation determines whether an existing healthcare service meets patients’ needs and achieves its intended objectives.¹⁷ It is primarily concerned with understanding and improving an existing service in its local context rather than generating generalisable research knowledge. Examples include:
✽ Evaluating patient satisfaction with a nurse-led clinic
✽ Assessing waiting times for chronic disease reviews
✽ Reviewing patient experience following implementation of online appointment booking.

The findings help practices refine services and improve patient experience. Practices can use local service evaluation methods to identify opportunities to improve access, experience, and service delivery.

QI: An ongoing, structured approach to improving healthcare systems through measurement, testing, and adaptation of changes.¹⁸ Rather than implementing large-scale changes, QI encourages clinicians to test interventions on a manageable scale, measure their impact, and adapt accordingly. Many GPNs embed QI within everyday clinical work. Examples include:
✽ Introducing SMS reminders to improve cervical screening attendance
✽ Redesigning vaccine recall systems
✽ Developing electronic consultation templates
✽ Improving documentation of smoking status
✽ Introducing bespoke clinics and assessments for adolescents
✽ Increasing uptake of annual chronic disease reviews.

Unlike one-off projects, QI is continuous. Every improvement generates further questions, encouraging a culture of learning throughout the practice.

Why research matters to GPNs

GPNs have an important position within Irish primary care, often building long-term therapeutic relationships with patients, allowing them to observe subtle changes in health, recognise gaps in care, and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions over time. This continuity places GPNs at the centre of QI. The NMBI Code incorporates professional guidance on ethical conduct in research and applies to registrants across roles and settings, including leadership and education.² This reflects the modern expectation that nurses contribute to evidence-informed healthcare throughout their careers.

For GPNS, this contribution may involve:
✽ Participating in practice audits
✽ Collecting outcome data
✽ Implementing national clinical guidelines
✽ Evaluating new models of care
✽ Participating in multidisciplinary research
✽ Presenting QI projects
✽ Disseminating findings through publications or conferences.

These activities strengthen professional practice while simultaneously improving patient care.

The NMBI Code: Translating research into professional practice

The NMBI Code provides the professional framework for safe, ethical, and person-centred practice and sets expectations for accountability, competence, collaboration, and leadership.² For GPNs, the Code reinforces that maintaining competence requires more than preserving existing knowledge; it demands an ongoing commitment to lifelong learning, critical reflection, and the integration of emerging evidence into clinical practice.

In many respects, EBP and the NMBI Code are inseparable. Research tells us what the evidence suggests should be done, while the Code guides how that evidence should be applied professionally, ethically, and compassionately. Professional accountability has always been central to nursing. Every clinical assessment, intervention, and recommendation made by a GPN carries professional responsibility.

The commitment to practice within competence and maintain and develop competence throughout our professional life^1,5 means that clinical knowledge cannot remain static. As new evidence emerges, GPNs have a responsibility to critically evaluate it, determine its relevance to their practice, and modify care where appropriate.

For example, recommendations for childhood immunisation schedules, chronic disease management, antimicrobial stewardship, and wound care continue to evolve. A GPN who regularly reviews national guidance from the HSE, National Immunisation Office, Irish College of General Practitioners, and peer-reviewed literature demonstrates both professional competence and accountability.

Equally important is recognising when evidence is uncertain. Professional accountability does not require GPNs to know every answer – rather, it requires that we know where to find reliable evidence and when to seek advice from colleagues or specialist services.

Respect for autonomy

Respect for autonomy is an important principle in healthcare ethics and is reflected in the NMBI Code’s emphasis on respect, person-centred care, and ethical decision-making.² Respect for autonomy requires clear information and support for informed decision-making – research participation also requires compliance with applicable ethical and governance requirements.²

Respecting autonomy means ensuring that individuals receive sufficient information to understand the purpose of any proposed intervention, the potential benefits and risks involved, and their right to decline without prejudice to their ongoing care.

Within general practice, this principle extends beyond formal research projects. A GPN introducing a new recall system for diabetic reviews, inviting patients to participate in a service evaluation, or collecting patient-reported outcome measures should always ensure that communication is clear, transparent, and respectful.

Supporting autonomy also requires GPNs to recognise differences in health literacy, cultural beliefs, and individual preferences. EBP should never become evidence-imposed practice.

Instead, research findings should inform shared decision-making between the GPN and patient, allowing care to be tailored to each individual’s circumstances and values.

A practical example of this is familiar to all GPNs: A patient declines influenza vaccination having read conflicting information online. Rather than dismissing their concerns, the GPN explores the reasons for their hesitation, provides balanced evidence from trusted sources, and supports the patient in making an informed decision. The patient may still decline the vaccine – that is their right.

We must remember, evidence informs the conversation, but respect for autonomy guides the consultation.

Beneficence and non-maleficence

The ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence – promoting benefit while avoiding unnecessary harm – are important considerations in nursing care. Research provides the evidence that allows clinicians to determine whether interventions are more likely to benefit or harm patients. Consequently, introducing new evidence into practice requires careful consideration of both potential benefits and unintended consequences.

Consider wound management. Although evidence comparing tap water with saline for wound cleansing is of low or very low certainty,¹⁹ tap water is frequently cited as being as effective as sterile saline. However, EBP does not mean that saline should never be used. The choice should be guided by the individual wound, the patient’s needs, and local clinical guidance rather than by a blanket approach. This highlights the importance of understanding the available evidence, assessing each patient individually, and selecting the most appropriate intervention based on clinical need rather than routine or habit. This also illustrates an important principle often overlooked in discussions about EBP: Tradition should never be the sole reason for continuing a clinical intervention, and crucially, evidence does not replace clinical judgement. Rather, it strengthens it.

Confidentiality in an era of digital healthcare

General practice increasingly relies on electronic health records, disease registers, and digital communication systems. These technologies create valuable opportunities for audit, research, and QI, but also increase the professional responsibility to safeguard confidential patient information.¹⁹ The NMBI Code requires protection of privacy and confidentiality, while the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governs the processing and protection of personal data.^2,19

For GPNs undertaking clinical audit or service evaluation, practical safeguards include:
✽ Anonymising data before analysis
✽ Using encrypted password-protected files
✽ Restricting access to authorised personnel
✽ Ensuring secure disposal of identifiable information
✽ Following local data governance policies.

Maintaining confidentiality is not simply a legal requirement – it is fundamental to maintaining public trust in the nursing profession.

Professional integrity

Research depends upon honesty. Whether conducting a large clinical study or a simple practice audit, the integrity of the findings depends on accurate data collection, transparent reporting, and willingness to acknowledge limitations. What happens if a clinical audit determines that only 70 per cent of eligible patients have received an annual diabetic foot assessment despite a practice target of 90 per cent?

Professional integrity requires that these findings are reported accurately rather than selectively presenting favourable findings. Honest reporting allows the practice team to identify barriers, develop improvement strategies, and measure progress through re-audit. The primary purpose of any clinical audit is QI rather than assigning blame.¹⁵ Creating a culture where results are viewed as opportunities for learning rather than criticism encourages continuous QI throughout the practice.

Leadership through evidence, not title

One of the most significant developments within modern nursing is the recognition that leadership is not determined by job title or years of service. The NMBI Code recognises leadership as a professional responsibility shared by every registered nurse – therefore, every GPN has opportunities to influence clinical practice.² Clinical leadership is key to the delivery of safe, effective care and is the responsibility of all nurses and midwives, regardless of grade, role, or position.

Leadership may involve:
✽ Introducing evidence-based protocols
✽ Leading vaccination campaigns
✽ Coordinating chronic disease programmes
✽ Leading and presenting audit findings
✽ Mentoring colleagues or students
✽ Questioning outdated practices
✽ Championing patient safety initiatives.

Each of these activities reflects leadership grounded in evidence, not authority or seniority. By questioning established routines and advocating for best practice, GPNs can become catalysts for positive change within their practices and across primary care. One nurse asking, ‘Could we improve this?’ can influence the practice of an entire clinical team.

Clinical audit: Research in action in general practice

If the concept of research is intimidating – or evokes images of universities, laboratories, and complex statistical analysis – it is reassuring to consider that one of the most valuable forms of evidence generation occurs every day within general practice through clinical audit.¹⁵

Clinical audit enables evaluation of whether care delivered reflects current evidence and national standards while identifying practical opportunities for improvement by asking a simple but important question: ‘Are we providing the standard of care our patients should receive?’ By answering this question systematically, GPNs become active contributors to EBP, translating research findings into measurable improvements in patient care.

The PDSA Cycle

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is widely used within the model for improvement to test and adapt changes on a small scale.²¹

PLAN: Identify a problem, establish a measurable objective, and develop a strategy for improvement.
DO: Implement the intervention on a small scale while collecting relevant data.
STUDY: Analyse the results and compare outcomes with the agreed standard.
ACT: Adopt the change if successful, modify it if necessary, or develop an alternative strategy before repeating the cycle.

THE APPROACH SUPPORTS ITERATIVE LEARNING: Teams plan a test, carry it out, study the results, and act on what is learned before the next test. Rather than attempting extensive redesign of the GP practice or service, the PDSA approach promotes continuous improvement through a series of small, measurable changes. Each audit provides an opportunity not only to improve patient outcomes, but also to demonstrate professional accountability in accordance with the NMBI Code. Importantly, the final stage is not the end of the process. Every completed audit may raise new questions, making QI an ongoing professional responsibility rather than a finite project.

An example of the PDSA cycle in action in general practice

During a routine diabetes clinic, the GPN notices that several patients attending for annual review have no documented foot examination within the previous 12 months. Initially, this appears to be an isolated oversight. However, the GPN pauses and asks a simple question: Is this happening across the whole practice?

That single question marks the beginning of a clinical audit. Rather than relying on anecdotal impressions, the GPN aims to determine whether eligible patients with diabetes are receiving foot assessment in accordance with the practice’s own standard of 90 per cent of patients with type 2 diabetes. Audit begins with the same curiosity as research, and in this example, a curious nurse.

Applying the PDSA cycle: A diabetes foot screening audit plan

PLAN: Using the electronic patient management system, the GPN identifies eligible patients included in the local audit population, according to the practice’s predefined inclusion criteria. The audit standard is established before data collection begins. While an audit must be conducted against a standard, this is a locally selected audit standard, and not necessarily a national standard. This predefined standard ensures that results can be interpreted objectively.

Applying the NMBI Code

Before accessing patient records, the GPN considers the ethical responsibilities outlined within the NMBI Code:
✽ Patient confidentiality remains paramount.
✽ Only information necessary for  the audit is extracted.
✽ Electronic data should be minimised, appropriately protected, and accessed only by authorised personnel in accordance with data-protection and local governance requirements.^{2, 20}
✽ For an internal audit, the practice should follow its local governance requirements and applicable data-protection and ethics processes. Patients contacted following the audit should receive clear information about the purpose of the service review where appropriate.

EBP is therefore supported by ethical practice.

DO: The audit is undertaken over two weeks. Following analysis of the electronic records, the GPN discovers that only 68 per cent of eligible patients have a documented annual foot examination. Although disappointing, the findings provide valuable information. Rather than identifying poor performance, the audit has identified an opportunity for improvement.

Further review reveals several contributory factors:
✽ Inconsistent use of electronic consultation templates
✽ Missed opportunities during routine consultations and influenza vaccination clinics
✽ No structured patient recall system
✽ Variation in documentation between clinicians.

STUDY: The audit findings are presented during the practice clinical meeting. Importantly, the discussion focuses on systems rather than individuals. The purpose is not to assign blame but to understand why variation has occurred. The multidisciplinary team agrees that relatively simple changes could substantially improve performance and the practice IT system has the capabilities to support implementation of the necessary improvements. These include:
✽ Introducing an electronic diabetes review template
✽ Creating automated patient recall reminders
✽ Adding prompts within chronic disease consultations
✽ Allocating protected clinic time for annual reviews.

Because the audit findings are based upon objective data rather than opinion, they provide a strong foundation for service improvement.

ACT: The agreed interventions are implemented over the following six months. When the audit is repeated, compliance has increased from 68 to 88 per cent. Although the original target of 90 per cent has not yet been achieved, the practice has demonstrated measurable improvement while identifying further opportunities for refinement.

The improvement means that a greater proportion of patients received the preventive assessment specified in the audit standard. The example demonstrates how audit can identify gaps and support improvement – it does not by itself establish a reduction in ulceration, infection, or hospital admission. The cycle therefore continues. Continuous improvement, rather than perfection, is the true objective.

This example illustrates that research in general practice does not always involve complex methodologies, but rather one observant nurse, a well-defined clinical question, a structured audit, and one single measurable improvement.

The cumulative impact of these seemingly small changes can be profound, improving patient safety, strengthening clinical governance, and embedding a culture of continuous learning within the practice, as this approach can be applied to other clinical care provision.

Reflect on your own clinical area and ask yourself:
✽ Which aspect of care concerns me most?
✽ What national standard applies?
✽ Can I measure our current performance?
✽ What one change could improve patient outcomes?
✽ When will I repeat the audit?

Every successful clinical audit begins with professional curiosity. Be the curious nurse.

Creating a research culture in general practice

EBP is most effective when it becomes part of the culture of a healthcare organisation rather than the responsibility of individual clinicians.²¹ While GPNs have an important role in maintaining their own professional competence, sustainable improvements in patient care occur when the entire practice team embraces continuous learning, critical reflection, and QI.

We know that a research culture does not require sophisticated laboratories, dedicated research departments, or university affiliations. Instead, it is characterised by curiosity, collaboration, and a willingness to question whether current practice represents the best available care.

In general practice, where our long-term relationships with patients provide unique opportunities to observe health outcomes over time, fostering such a culture can have a profound impact on both patient care and professional development.

What does a research culture look like?

Research-active practices are not defined by publishing numerous scientific papers. Rather, they are practices where members of the multidisciplinary team regularly ask questions, evaluate outcomes, and seek opportunities to improve care.

These are simple questions:
✽ Are we meeting national clinical standards?
✽ Could this service be organised more effectively?
✽ Why are some patients not engaging with preventive programmes?
✽ Has new evidence changed the way we should practice?
✽ What do our patients tell us about their experience of care?

Asking these questions transforms routine clinical work into opportunities for learning and improvement. Research-active GPNs recognise that every consultation contributes to wider population health.
✽ A blood pressure review contributes to cardiovascular disease prevention
✽ A smoking cessation conversation reduces future cancer risk
✽ A childhood vaccination protects both the individual child and the wider community
✽ A clinical audit improves care for every future patient attending the practice.

This broader perspective transforms routine nursing interventions into meaningful public health contributions. Importantly, a research culture encourages curiosity without criticism. It recognises that identifying opportunities for improvement reflects professional maturity rather than professional failure.

If your practice meetings focus almost exclusively on operational issues such as appointment availability and staffing, it is worth considering introducing a 10-minute evidence update at the end of each monthly meeting. Each month, one member of the team presents a recent guideline, research paper, or QI project relevant to primary care. Over time, discussing evidence becomes a normal part of practice life rather than an occasional educational exercise.

Such small changes can have a lasting influence on professional culture, and may lead to the establishment of a practice journal club or formal reflection and sharing of consultations that went well or presented a challenge. These initiatives may appear modest individually, but collectively they contribute to interprofessional learning,²³ leading to improvements in patient safety, healthcare quality, and service efficiency.

CPD

Healthcare knowledge expands rapidly. New evidence, updated guidelines, and evolving technologies require nurses to engage continuously in professional learning throughout their careers. Continuing professional development (CPD) should therefore extend beyond mandatory education requirements. The NMBI Code places CPD at the centre of professional practice.² Competence is not maintained by relying on knowledge acquired during undergraduate education but through continuous engagement with emerging evidence, national guidelines, and reflective learning.⁵

For GPNs, lifelong learning may involve:
✽ Critically appraising new research
✽ Participating in clinical audit
✽ Attending professional education programmes
✽ Contributing to QI initiatives
✽ Mentoring colleagues and students
✽ Presenting practice innovations at conferences
✽ Collaborating with multidisciplinary research projects.

Learning therefore becomes an integral part of everyday practice rather than an activity reserved for formal education. CPD should not simply accumulate certificates; it should change practice.

Conclusion

EBP has transformed modern healthcare by ensuring that clinical decisions are informed by the best available evidence, by professional expertise, and the values of the individual receiving our care.²⁴ For GPNs, this approach is neither an academic ideal nor an additional responsibility. It is fundamental to safe, ethical, and accountable professional practice. Research often begins in an ordinary consultation room, when a GPN is curious and asks: ‘Could we do this better?’.

Every audit completed, every clinical guideline implemented, and every outdated practice thoughtfully reconsidered represents evidence-based nursing in action. The NMBI Code links professional practice with accountability, competence, ethical decision-making, and ongoing professional development. Research provides the evidence; professional judgement determines how that evidence is applied; and compassionate, person-centred care remains the ultimate goal.

GPNs have an important role within Irish primary care. Through continuity of care, they influence the health of individuals, families, and communities throughout the lifespan.

By embracing professional curiosity and integrating research into everyday practice, GPNs not only improve the quality of care they deliver today, but also contribute to the future development of nursing and primary healthcare in Ireland.

Research is therefore integral to nursing practice. For GPNs, professional curiosity, critical appraisal, and quality improvement provide practical routes from evidence to safer, more person-centred care. One important take-away question to ask yourself: Am I a curious GPN?

Contact Details for PDCs

Marie Courtney
marie.courtney@hse.ie
086 787 2408
Integrated Health Areas of
Cork and Kerry

Marie Cantwell
marie.cantwell@hse.ie
087 607 8925
Integrated Health Areas of
Dublin North County and
Dublin North City and West

Kathy Taaffe
kathy.taaffe@hse.ie
087 132 1424
Integrated Health Areas of
HSE West and Northwest

Elizabeth Carroll
elizabeth.carroll2@hse.ie
087 491 2159
Integrated Health Areas of Carlow, Kilkenny, South Tipperary, and Wexford/ Waterford

Mairead Murphy
mairead.murphy11@hse.ie
087 120 6184
Integrated Health Areas of
HSE West and Northwest

---

Authors

Kathy Taaffe and Marie Courtney, Professional Development Coordinators for General Practice Nursing