Extending the Scope of Health Visiting and School Nursing Practice Within a 0–19 Service

In 2018, an employing organisation in the north of England introduced an initiative for health visitors and school nurses (SCPHN) to work in the other field of practice. The aim of this study was to explore SCPHN professionals’ and managers’ views about the introduction, benefits and challenges of extended SCPHN practice. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with health visitors, school nurses, practice teachers, mentors and managers undertaking or supporting this initiative (n=18) and one focus group with eight SCPHNs working in the 0–19 service. These were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Workplace learning was challenging. Support from colleagues, mentors and practice teachers was crucial. Additional skills and knowledge were valued. SCPHNs gained confidence in working with children and families across the 0–19 age range. Additional skills enabled SCPHNs to deliver a more streamlined service to families with children aged 0–19 but concerns about workforce capacity and changing professional roles remain

The challenges of communicating research evidence in practice: perspectives from UK health visitors and practice nurses

<p>Background: Health practitioners play a pivotal role in providing patients with up-to-date evidence and health information. Evidence-based practice and patient-centred care are transforming the delivery of healthcare in the UK. Health practitioners are increasingly balancing the need to provide evidence-based information against that of facilitating patient choice, which may not always concur with the evidence base. There is limited research exploring how health practitioners working in the UK, and particularly those more autonomous practitioners such as health visitors and practice nurses working in community practice settings, negotiate this challenge. This research provides a descriptive account of how health visitors and practice nurses negotiate the challenges of communicating health information and research evidence in practice.</p> <p>Methods: A total of eighteen in-depth telephone interviews were conducted in the UK between September 2008 and May 2009. The participants comprised nine health visitors and nine practice nurses, recruited via adverts on a nursing website, posters at a practitioner conference and through recommendation. Thematic analysis, with a focus on constant comparative method, was used to analyse the data.</p> <p>Results: The data were grouped into three main themes: communicating evidence to the critically-minded patient; confidence in communicating evidence; and maintaining the integrity of the patient-practitioner relationship. These findings highlight some of the daily challenges that health visitors and practice nurses face with regard to the complex and dynamic nature of evidence and the changing attitudes and expectations of patients. The findings also highlight the tensions that exist between differing philosophies of evidence-based practice and patient-centred care, which can make communicating about evidence a daunting task.</p> <p>Conclusions: If health practitioners are to be effective at communicating research evidence, we suggest that more research and resources need to be focused on contextual factors, such as how research evidence is negotiated, appraised and communicated within the dynamic patient-practitioner relationship.</p&gt

Nurses' perceived barriers to the implementation of a Fall Prevention Clinical Practice Guideline in Singapore hospitals

BackgroundTheories of behavior change indicate that an analysis of barriers to change is helpful when trying to influence professional practice. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived barriers to practice change by eliciting nurses\u27 opinions with regard to barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation of a Fall Prevention clinical practice guideline in five acute care hospitals in Singapore.MethodsNurses were surveyed to identify their perceptions regarding barriers to implementation of clinical practice guidelines in their practice setting. The validated questionnaire, \u27Barriers and facilitators assessment instrument\u27, was administered to nurses (n = 1830) working in the medical, surgical, geriatric units, at five acute care hospitals in Singapore.ResultsAn 80.2% response rate was achieved. The greatest barriers to implementation of clinical practice guidelines reported included: knowledge and motivation, availability of support staff, access to facilities, health status of patients, and, education of staff and patients.ConclusionNumerous barriers to the use of the Fall Prevention Clinical Practice Guideline have been identified. This study has laid the foundation for further research into implementation of clinical practice guidelines in Singapore by identifying barriers to change in acute care settings.<br /

Improving quality of care through routine, successful implementation of evidence-based practice at the bedside: an organizational case study protocol using the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an expected approach to improving the quality of patient care and service delivery in health care systems internationally that is yet to be realized. Given the current evidence-practice gap, numerous authors describe barriers to achieving EBP. One recurrently identified barrier is the setting or context of practice, which is likewise cited as a potential part of the solution to the gap. The purpose of this study is to identify key contextual elements and related strategic processes in organizations that find and use evidence at multiple levels, in an ongoing, integrated fashion, in contrast to those that do not. METHODS: The core theoretical framework for this multi-method explanatory case study is Pettigrew and Whipp's Content, Context, and Process model of strategic change. This framework focuses data collection on three entities: the Why of strategic change, the What of strategic change, and the How of strategic change, in this case related to implementation and normalization of EBP. The data collection plan, designed to capture relevant organizational context and related outcomes, focuses on eight interrelated factors said to characterize a receptive context. Selective, purposive sampling will provide contrasting results between two cases (departments of nursing) and three embedded units in each. Data collection methods will include quantitative tools (e.g., regarding culture) and qualitative approaches including focus groups, interviews, and documents review (e.g., regarding integration and “success”) relevant to the EBP initiative. DISCUSSION: This study should provide information regarding contextual elements and related strategic processes key to successful implementation and sustainability of EBP, specifically in terms of a pervasive pattern in an acute care hospital-based health care setting. Additionally, this study will identify key contextual elements that differentiate successful implementation and sustainability of EBP efforts, both within varying levels of a hospital-based clinical setting and across similar hospital settings interested in EBP

The BARRIERS scale -- the barriers to research utilization scale: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A commonly recommended strategy for increasing research use in clinical practice is to identify barriers to change and then tailor interventions to overcome the identified barriers. In nursing, the BARRIERS scale has been used extensively to identify barriers to research utilization.</p> <p>Aim and objectives</p> <p>The aim of this systematic review was to examine the state of knowledge resulting from use of the BARRIERS scale and to make recommendations about future use of the scale. The following objectives were addressed: To examine how the scale has been modified, to examine its psychometric properties, to determine the main barriers (and whether they varied over time and geographic locations), and to identify associations between nurses' reported barriers and reported research use.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Medline (1991 to September 2009) and CINHAL (1991 to September 2009) were searched for published research, and ProQuest^®digital dissertations were searched for unpublished dissertations using the BARRIERS scale. Inclusion criteria were: studies using the BARRIERS scale in its entirety and where the sample was nurses. Two authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixty-three studies were included, with most using a cross-sectional design. Not one study used the scale for tailoring interventions to overcome identified barriers. The main barriers reported were related to the setting, and the presentation of research findings. Overall, identified barriers were consistent over time and across geographic locations, despite varying sample size, response rate, study setting, and assessment of study quality. Few studies reported associations between reported research use and perceptions of barriers to research utilization.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The BARRIERS scale is a nonspecific tool for identifying general barriers to research utilization. The scale is reliable as reflected in assessments of internal consistency. The validity of the scale, however, is doubtful. There is no evidence that it is a useful tool for planning implementation interventions. We recommend that no further descriptive studies using the BARRIERS scale be undertaken. Barriers need to be measured specific to the particular context of implementation and the intended evidence to be implemented.</p

A mixed methods pilot study with a cluster randomized control trial to evaluate the impact of a leadership intervention on guideline implementation in home care nursing

Abstract Background Foot ulcers are a significant problem for people with diabetes. Comprehensive assessments of risk factors associated with diabetic foot ulcer are recommended in clinical guidelines to decrease complications such as prolonged healing, gangrene and amputations, and to promote effective management. However, the translation of clinical guidelines into nursing practice remains fragmented and inconsistent, and a recent homecare chart audit showed less than half the recommended risk factors for diabetic foot ulcers were assessed, and peripheral neuropathy (the most significant predictor of complications) was not assessed at all. Strong leadership is consistently described as significant to successfully transfer guidelines into practice. Limited research exists however regarding which leadership behaviours facilitate and support implementation in nursing. The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the impact of a leadership intervention in community nursing on implementing recommendations from a clinical guideline on the nursing assessment and management of diabetic foot ulcers. Methods Two phase mixed methods design is proposed (ISRCTN 12345678). Phase I: Descriptive qualitative to understand barriers to implementing the guideline recommendations, and to inform the intervention. Phase II: Matched pair cluster randomized controlled trial (n = 4 centers) will evaluate differences in outcomes between two implementation strategies. Primary outcome: Nursing assessments of client risk factors, a composite score of 8 items based on Diabetes/Foot Ulcer guideline recommendations. Intervention: In addition to the organization's 'usual' implementation strategy, a 12 week leadership strategy will be offered to managerial and clinical leaders consisting of: a) printed materials, b) one day interactive workshop to develop a leadership action plan tailored to barriers to support implementation; c) three post-workshop teleconferences. Discussion This study will provide vital information on which leadership strategies are well received to facilitate and support guideline implementation. The anticipated outcomes will provide information to assist with effective management of foot ulcers for people with diabetes. By tracking clinical outcomes associated with guideline implementation, health care administrators will be better informed to influence organizational and policy decision-making to support evidence-based quality care. Findings will be useful to inform the design of future multi-centered trials on various clinical topics to enhance knowledge translation for positive outcomes. Trial Registration Current Control Trials ISRCTN0691089