Aim This study aimed to produce preliminary evidence to inform the development of a framework for a consistent approach to downgrading frequent visual observations (FVO) monitoring in acquired brain injury (ABI) patients.

Design A purposive sample of 12 neurorehabilitation nurses participated in a two-stage, mixed-method design that involved a modified nominal group technique (NGT) and focus groups.

Results An agreed-upon 15 factors, converged into four categories, were identified as important to decision-making for downgrading FVO and monitoring. The mean percentage agreement across all 15 factors was 41% (95% confidence interval = 36% to 46%), indicating, on average, that there was moderate agreement between nursing staff ratings. The qualitative analysis produced two main themes – dimensions of the decision-making process, and strategies to streamline decision-making.

Conclusion Any intervention to support decision-making must be adaptable enough to suit highly variable clinical situations, and flexible enough to accommodate a range of patient-relevant factors that affect decision-making. Further research in this specialised area of rehabilitation needs to allow for consistent rather than uniform risk assessments and review processes and supported clinical decision-making to assist nurses when determining if and when to downgrade a patient’s FVO.

Introduction Direct-care rehabilitation nurses often want to lead research but lack the skills and resources. Many research capacity building (RCB) models have been used and evaluated, yet the literature is thin regarding the early steps of program development for direct-care nurses.

Aim This paper describes one team’s experience of the process of developing a RCB program.

Method This paper explains steps in the developmental process of a program of RCB for direct-care rehabilitation nurses. The process is framed by a specific theoretical model and the practical, contextual assumptions which had to be taken into account.

Results The two overarching conceptual components in the developmental process were determining objectives, and identifying and resolving risks. Steps in the process are outlined, together with how risks were managed while progressing toward the goal: the inaugural Rehabilitation and Research Masterclass Program – Nursing (RaMP-N). The Program is briefly outlined.

Discussion This paper fills a gap by describing the formative stage of the RaMP-N that was crucial to its quality and relevance. The experience upskilled and energised the team, and generated small nurse-led research projects. The program format and content remained flexible and tailored, consistent with adult learning principles and rehabilitation nursing. Further research is needed to test the transferability and sustainability of the RaMP-N.

Conclusion The RaMP-N program strengthened rehabilitation nurses’ engagement with research. Conversations, consideration, consultation, commitment and collaboration underpinned the evolving program as strategies and modifications were identified, applied and evaluated. The process enhanced the program team’s leadership skills and participants’ research skills.

Quality appraisal of the research literature is a formal and systematic process which informs the consumer about the utility of a study. Methodological and reporting quality are part of this process. Quality appraisal, however, can be an unfamiliar process for clinical nurses. Nonetheless, considering the quality of a study can be as simple as considering the cohort size given the design of the paper (quantitative vs qualitative). Numerous tools have been developed that aid in appraising the quality of studies. There are two types of tools to consider here – critical appraisal tools used for apprising methodological quality or reporting guidelines. The aim of this paper is to discuss the difference between critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines, including when to use these two types of tools.