Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

AIM: To investigate what registered nurses (RNs) with a PhD working in clinical practice experience in terms of their role, function and work context.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that RNs with a graduate degree contribute to better and safer care for patients. However, little is known about what further academic schooling of RNs, at PhD level, means for clinical practice.

METHOD: Qualitative design, with semi-structured interviews and inductive content analysis.

RESULTS: The main areas of responsibilities for RNs with a PhD working in clinical practice were related to practice development and implementation of research results. In their work, they experienced barriers to the full use of their competence; the expectations and prerequisites of the organization were not clearly defined, and they often lacked a mandate to create conditions for quality improvement of nursing care.

CONCLUSIONS: RNs with a PhD can contribute to evidence-based practice (EBP), clinical training as well as the development of clinical research. Their roles and responsibilities need to be clarified and for this, they need support from managers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers should partner with RNs with a PhD to support the EBP process and help structure nursing practice in more efficient ways. 

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES:

The risk of developing urinary incontinence (UI) is associated with older age and hip surgery. There has been limited focus on factors that promote evidence-based UI practice in the orthopaedic context. The aim of this study was to evaluate an implementation intervention to support evidence-based practice for UI in patients aged 65 or older undergoing hip surgery.

METHODS:

A 3-month intervention was delivered in 2014 to facilitate the implementation of UI knowledge in orthopaedic units in 2 hospitals in Sweden. Each unit appointed a multidisciplinary team of nurses and physiotherapists or occupational therapists to facilitate the implementation. The teams were supported by external facilitators who shared knowledge about UI and implementation science. Interviews, nonparticipant observations, and audits of patient records were performed.

RESULTS:

Prior to the intervention, there was no use of guidelines regarding UI. The intervention raised the internal facilitators' awareness of UI risks associated with hip surgery. As internal facilitators shared this information with their peers, staff awareness of UI increased. The teams of internal facilitators described needing additional time and support from managers to implement evidence-based UI care. A management initiative triggered by the intervention increased the documentation of UI and urinary problems in 1 unit.

CONCLUSION:

To promote evidence-based practice related to safe procedures for older people in hospital care, there is a need to better understand strategies that successfully facilitate knowledge implementation. This study suggests that a multiprofessional team approach is promising for instigating a process towards evidence-based management of UI.

Background

Health care practice needs to be underpinned by high quality research evidence, so that the best possible care can be delivered. However, evidence from research is not always utilised in practice. This study used the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework as its theoretical underpinning to test whether two different approaches to facilitating implementation could affect the use of research evidence in practice.

Methods

A pragmatic clustered randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation was used. The study took place in four European countries across 24 long-term nursing care sites, for people aged 60 years or more with documented urinary incontinence. In each country, sites were randomly allocated to standard dissemination, or one of two different types of facilitation. The primary outcome was the documented percentage compliance with the continence recommendations, assessed at baseline, then at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the intervention.

Data were analysed using STATA15, multi-level mixed-effects linear regression models were fitted to scores for compliance with the continence recommendations, adjusting for clustering.

Results

Quantitative data were obtained from reviews of 2313 records. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (documented compliance with continence recommendations) between study arms and all study arms improved over time.

Conclusions

This was the first cross European randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation that sought to test different methods of facilitation. There were no statistically significant differences in compliance with continence recommendations between the groups. It was not possible to identify whether different types and “doses” of facilitation were influential within very diverse contextual conditions. The process evaluation (Rycroft-Malone et al., Implementation Science. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0) revealed the models of facilitation used were limited in their ability to overcome the influence of contextual factors.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11598502. Date 4/2/10.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 223646.

This study investigated first-line managers’ experience of and responses to a concise leadership intervention to facilitate the implementation of oral care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in nursing homes. Leadership is known to be an important element in knowledge implementation but little is known as to what supports managers to facilitate the process. By means of a process evaluation with mixed methods, the context and a three-month leadership program was explored, including activities during and in relation to the program, and the effects in terms of oral care CPG implementation plans. While the managers appreciated the intervention and considered improved oral care to be a priority, their implementation plans mainly focused the dissemination of an oral care checklist. The findings suggest that extended implementation interventions engaging both managers and clinical staff are needed, and that a concise intervention does not facilitate first-line managers to adopt behaviors known to facilitate knowledge implementation.

Objective: To investigate the use of data from national quality registries (NQRs) in local quality improvement as well as purported key factors for effective clinical use in Sweden.

Design: Comparative descriptive: a web survey of all Swedish hospitals participating in three NQRs with different levels of development (certification level).

Setting and Participants: Heads of the clinics and physician(s) at clinics participating in the Swedish Stroke Register (Riksstroke), the Swedish National Registry of Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks) and the Swedish Lung Cancer Registry (NLCR).

Main Outcome Measure(s): Individual and unit level use of NQRs in local quality improvement, and perceptions on data quality, organizational conditions and user motivation.

Results: Riksstroke data were reported as most extensively used at individual and unit levels (x̅ 17.97 of 24 and x̅ 27.06 of 35). Data quality and usefulness was considered high for the two most developed NQRs (x̅ 19.86 for Riksstroke and x̅ 19.89 for GallRiks of 25). Organizational conditions were estimated at the same level for Riksstroke and GallRiks (x̅ 12.90 and x̅ 13.28 of 20) while the least developed registry, the NLCR, had lower estimates (x̅ 10.32). In Riksstroke, the managers requested registry data more often (x̅ 15.17 of 20).

Conclusions: While there were significant differences between registries in key factors such as management interest, use of NQR data in local quality improvement seems rather prevalent, at least for Riksstroke. The link between the registry's level of development and factors important for routinization of innovations such as NQRs needs investigation.

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse.

BACKGROUND: In a previous trial in Vietnam, a facilitation strategy to secure evidence-based practice in primary care resulted in reduced neonatal mortality over a period of three years. While little is known as to what ensures sustainability in the implementation of community-based strategies, the aim of this study was to investigate factors promoting or hindering implementation, and sustainability of knowledge implementation strategies, by means of the former Neonatal Knowledge Into Practice (NeoKIP) trial.

METHODS: In 2014 we targeted all levels in the Vietnamese healthcare system: six individual interviews with representatives at national, provincial and district levels, and six focus group discussions with representatives at the commune level. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, translated to English, and analysed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS: To achieve successful implementation and sustained effect of community-based knowledge implementation strategies, engagement of leaders and key stakeholders at all levels of the healthcare system is vital-prior to, during and after a project. Implementation and sustainability require thorough needs assessment, tailoring of the intervention, and consideration of how to attain and manage funds. The NeoKIP trial was characterised by a high degree of engagement at the primary healthcare system level. Further, three years post trial, maternal and neonatal care was still high on the agenda for healthcare workers and leaders, even though primary aspects such as stakeholder engagement at all levels, and funding had been incomplete or lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: The current study illustrates factors to support successful implementation and sustain effects of community-based strategies in projects in low- and middle-income settings; some but not all factors were represented during the post-NeoKIP era. Most importantly, trials in this and similar contexts require deliberate management throughout and beyond the project lifetime, and engagement of key stakeholders, in order to promote and sustain knowledge implementation.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

To describe what nursing and rehabilitation staff know and do with regards to urinary incontinence and risk of urinary incontinence in patients 65 years or older undergoing hip surgery.

BACKGROUND:

Urinary incontinence is a common but often neglected issue for older people. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines on how to assess, manage and prevent UI, there are indications that these guidelines are not applied in hospital care.

DESIGN:

A qualitative study with descriptive design was conducted in two orthopaedic units.

METHODS:

46 interviews and 36 observations of care were conducted from January to October 2014 and analysed with qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS:

Enrolled nurses performed most of the care related to bladder function, with focus on urinary catheterisation and preventing urinary tract infection and urinary retention. Registered nurses' role in urinary matters mainly comprised documentation, while the rehabilitation staff focused on making it possible for the patient to be independent in toileting. The nursing staff considered urinary incontinence a common condition for older people and that it was convenient for the patients to have an indwelling catheter or incontinence pad/pant, although they acknowledged some of the risks associated with these procedures.

CONCLUSIONS:

Urinary incontinence is not a priority in orthopaedic care, and urinary incontinence guidelines are not applied. Further, attitudes and actions are mainly characterised by a lack of urinary incontinence knowledge and the nursing and rehabilitation staff do not take a team approach to preventing and managing UI.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE:

An increased focus on knowledge on urinary incontinence and evidence-based guidelines is needed. To secure evidence-based practice, the team of nursing and rehabilitation staff and managers must be aligned and work actively together, also including the patient in the team.