FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

First‐line managers' experience of guideline implementation during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Abstract

Aim(s)

To explore first-line managers' experience of guideline implementation in orthopaedic care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

A descriptive, qualitative study.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with 30 first-line nursing and rehabilitation managers in orthopaedic healthcare at university, regional and local hospitals. The interviews were analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

First-line managers described the implementation of guidelines related to the pandemic as different from everyday knowledge translation, with a swifter uptake and time freed from routine meetings in order to support staff in adoption and adherence. The urgent need to address the crisis facilitated guideline implementation, even though there were specific pandemic-related barriers such as staffing and communication issues. An overarching theme, Hanging on to guidelines for dear life, is substantiated by three themes: Adapting to facilitate change, Anchoring safety through guidelines and Embracing COVID guidelines.

Conclusion

A health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic can generate enabling elements for guideline implementation in healthcare, despite prevailing or new hindering components. The experience of guideline implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic can improve understanding of context aspects that can benefit organizations in everyday translation of evidence into practice.

Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care

Recognizing what enabled guideline implementation in a health crisis can help first-line managers to identify local enabling context elements and processes. This can facilitate future guideline implementation.

Impact

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare context and staff's motivation for guideline recognition and adoption changed. Resources and ways to bridge barriers in guideline implementation emerged, although specific challenges arose. Nursing managers can draw on experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic to support implementation of new evidence-based practices in the future.

Reporting Method

This study adheres to the EQUATOR guidelines by using Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Evaluation of patient participation in relation to the implementation of a person‐centered nursing shift handover

Abstract

Background

It has been suggested that nursing shift-to-shift handover should be a more team-based dialogue with and for the patient rather than about a patient.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate patient participation in relation to the implementation of the person-centered handover (PCH).

Method

A pretest–posttest design was used without a comparison group, including patients from nine units in a university hospital at pretest (n = 228) and after implementing PCH (posttest, n = 253) per the framework integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services. The PCH is inspired by an Australian bedside handover model. The Patient Preferences for the Patient Participation tool was used to rate the preference for and experience of participation on 12 items, combined into three levels of preference-based participation (insufficient–fair–sufficient).

Results

There were no differences regarding experience or preference-based participation between patients at pretest–posttest; however, posttest patients experienced participation in the item Reciprocal communication to a lesser extent than the pretest patients. Only 49% of the posttest group received PCH; of those not receiving PCH, some would have wanted PCH (27%), while some would have declined (24%). Patients receiving PCH had sufficient participation (82%), to a greater extent, regarding the item Sharing one's symptoms with staff than patients at pretest (72%). Patients receiving PCH also had sufficient participation, to a greater extent, than patients at posttest who did not receive, but would have wanted PCH, regarding four items: (1) sharing one's symptoms with staff, (2) reciprocal communication, (3) being told what was done, and (4) taking part in planning.

Linking evidence to action

Most patients want to be present at PCH. Therefore, nurses should ask for the patients' preferences regarding PCH and act accordingly. Not inviting patients who want PCH could contribute to insufficient patient participation. Further studies are needed to capture what assistance nurses would want in identifying and acting in alignment with patient preferences.

❌