FreshRSS

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

Is this to be another project that fizzles out? Using the i‐PARIHS framework to evaluate implementation of a mentoring programme

Abstract

It is well-known that the implementation of evidence into clinical practice is complex and challenging. The integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework conceptualizes successful implementation of evidence into practice. As the implementation of the mentoring programme proved to be a challenge, it seemed valuable to retrospectively study the implementation process using a framework like the i-PARIHS.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of a multifaceted mentoring programme for bedside nurses using the i-PARIHS framework, to identify factors that influenced the implementation.

Design

A secondary analysis of qualitative data using the i-PARIHS framework as the theoretical lens.

Method

A directed content analysis was performed, driven theoretically by the i-PARIHS framework. The analysis focused separately on (a) characteristics of the innovation and (b) successful and hindering factors in the implementation process.

Results

The results showed that successful factors influencing implementation of the mentoring programme included supportive and actively involved formal leaders and supervisors at the unit level. A major hindering factor was lack of resources in the form of personnel, time and money. A lack of facilitators, particularly experienced facilitators, throughout the organization hindered implementation. The i-PARIHS framework offered a structured how-to guide to identify factors that influenced the implementation process.

Conclusion

Implementation of the mentoring programme was a challenge for the organization. Investment into implementation should continue, with a more structured facilitation process. A structured and prioritized management system, including supportive leadership at the unit level, should be established by the hospital board.

Implications for the profession

There is a need for experienced facilitators throughout the organization. This is crucial to achieve sustainability in the mentoring programme and ensure that the large investments of staff resources and money do not fizzle out.

Impact

What problem did the study address?

Implementing a mentoring programme for nurses in a large university hospital proved to be a challenge. Therefore, it seemed valuable to retrospectively study the implementation process using a framework like the i-PARIHS.

What were the main findings?

A lack of facilitators, particularly experienced facilitators, throughout the organization hindered the implementation. The i-PARIHS framework offered a structured how-to guide to identify factors that influenced the implementation process.

Where and on whom will the research have an impact?

Our findings are important for leaders on all levels in a hospital setting, including the hospital board, heads of departments and nurse managers.

Reporting Method

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups is used.

Patient or Public Contribution

No patient or public contribution.

Oral health and oral care in patients in a surgical context: A quantitative study comparing patients' and nurses' assessments

Abstract

Aims

To investigate fundamental care delivery regarding oral care in a surgical context, and to compare patients' self-reported oral health with registered nurse assessments.

Design

A descriptive and comparative study, with a consecutive selection.

Methods

A patient oral health rating tool, including questions about performed oral care, was distributed to patients (n = 50), at four surgical wards in Sweden. The response rate was 72%. Oral health status was assessed by a registered nurse using the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG), and a comparison between patient and registered nurse assessment was performed by calculating Cohen's kappa coefficient and percentage agreement.

Results

Patients (38%) reported severe oral symptoms, mostly dry lips and not an adequate amount of saliva, and 80% were not offered help with oral care. ROAG assessments revealed that 74% had problems with oral health. Almost half of the patients (48%) needed assistance with oral care but only 10% received help. Registered nurses assessed the patient's oral health as worse than the patient's self-assessment did.

Conclusion

There are deficiencies in fundamental care delivery regarding oral care in a surgical care context. Oral health assessments need to be performed by registered nurses. Routines for systematic oral assessments and for oral care need to be implemented by nurse managers to ensure that patients' fundamental care needs are fulfilled.

Implications for the Profession and Patient Care

Oral health assessments need to be performed regularly by registered nurses since it is insufficient that patients self-assess their oral health. Nurse managers need to provide and implement routines for nurse assessments and oral care in surgical care contexts.

Impact

There are deficiencies in patients' oral health and oral care, and registered nurses need to perform oral health assessments. Nurse managers need to implement routines for registered nurse assessments and oral care.

Patient Contribution

Patients admitted to a surgical ward were included in the study after being screened for inclusion criteria. After participants signed informed consent, they filled in a questionnaire about oral health and oral care, and a registered nurse performed an oral health assessment.

Reporting Method

This study was carried out according to the STROBE checklist.

❌