Conectar
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.
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.
A secondary analysis of qualitative data using the i-PARIHS framework as the theoretical lens.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our findings are important for leaders on all levels in a hospital setting, including the hospital board, heads of departments and nurse managers.
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups is used.
No patient or public contribution.
To investigate fundamental care delivery regarding oral care in a surgical context, and to compare patients' self-reported oral health with registered nurse assessments.
A descriptive and comparative study, with a consecutive selection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This study was carried out according to the STROBE checklist.
This systematic review aimed to identify, describe and evaluate questionnaires measuring health professionals’ attitudes towards restraints in mental healthcare.
A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the COSMIN protocol for systematic review and the relevant sections of the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
OVID Medline, OVID nursing, Psychinfo, Embase and Cinahl were systematically searched from databases inception, with an initial search in December 2021 and updated in April 2022.
The inclusion criteria compromised articles reporting on self-reported instruments of attitudes or perceptions, development or validation of instruments and the evaluation of one or more measurement properties. Articles using multiple instruments in one study or not published in English were excluded. Two researchers independently extracted the data and appraised the methodological quality using the COSMIN guidelines and standards (consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instrument). A narrative synthesis without meta-analysis was performed. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO Protocol ID CRD42022308818.
A total of 23 studies reporting ten instruments were included. The findings revealed a broad variation in the content of the questionnaires, the use of terms/constructs and the context in which the various instruments measure attitudes towards coercive measures. Many studies lacked sufficient details on report of psychometric properties. Finally, the results were not summarized and the evidence not GRADED.
There is a need for updated and adapted instruments with origins in theory and clear joint definitions such that attitudes towards coercive measures can be reliably assessed regarding the validity and reliability of instruments, which will be of importance to facilitate the use of instruments in research and clinical settings.
Reviews addressing surveys, self-reported attitudes towards restraints in mental healthcare and examination of psychometric properties seem limited. We highlight distinct complexity, psychometric limitations and broad variation in the context and content measuring attitudes towards coercive measures, and their various use of terms/constructs in the existing questionnaires. These findings contribute to further research regarding the development of questionnaires and the need of representing the concept well – carefully denoted by the indicators, likewise the importance of applying questionnaires with properly reported measurement properties in terms of validity and reliability to ensure the use in research and clinical settings.
Background
Controlling high blood pressure (BP) continues to be a major concern because the associated complications can lead to an increased risk of heart, brain, and kidney disease. Those with hypertension, despite lifestyle and diet modifications and pharmacotherapy, defined as resistant hypertension, are at increased risk for further risk for morbidity and mortality. Understanding inflammation in this population may provide novel avenues for treatment.
Objectives
This study aimed to examine a broad range of cytokines in adults with cardiovascular disease and identify specific cytokines associated with resistant hypertension.
Methods
A secondary data analysis was conducted. The parent study included 156 adults with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 3–7 years and with a multiplex plasma analysis yielding a cytokine panel. A network analysis with lasso penalization for sparsity was performed to explore associations between cytokines and BP. Associated network centrality measures by cytokine were produced, and a community graph was extracted. A sensitivity analysis BP was also performed.
Results
Cytokines with larger node strength measures were sTNFR2 and CX3. The graphical network highlighted six cytokines strongly associated with resistant hypertension. Cytokines IL-29 and CCL3 were found to be negatively associated with resistant hypertension, whereas CXCL12, MMP3, sCD163, and sIL6Rb were positively associated with resistant hypertension.
Discussion
Understanding the network of associations through exploring oxidative stress and vascular inflammation may provide insight into treatment approaches for resistant hypertension. Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.
Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).
Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.
Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.
Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.
Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider’s information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.
Our study highlights the necessity that patients’ experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients’ information engagement into types.
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.
The aim of this study was to evaluate patient participation in relation to the implementation of the person-centered handover (PCH).
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).
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.
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.
FreshRSS 