FreshRSS

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

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Pressure Injury Guidelines for Nutrition Assessment and Alternating Pressure Air Mattress Allocation: A Qualitative Study

ABSTRACT

Aims

To investigate clinicians' views on barriers and facilitators to implementing pressure injury prevention guideline recommendations for nutrition assessment and treatment, and de-implementing inappropriate alternating pressure air mattress allocation.

Design

A qualitative descriptive study adhering to the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines.

Methods

We conducted face-to-face or videoconference focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews with clinicians recruited from a metropolitan tertiary hospital. Participants were purposively sampled according to their years of clinical practice. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed inductively to derive barriers and facilitators to guideline uptake. These were then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques to inform an evidence-based implementation intervention development to improve guideline uptake.

Results

Thirteen nurses, four occupational therapists and three dietitians were interviewed. Six themes illustrate three guideline-specific barriers and three common facilitators influencing nutrition- and mattress-related guideline uptake. The three barriers were: (1) nurses devalue the use of validated tools in nutrition screening; (2) nurses prioritise vital-sign-related nursing duties over feeding assistance according to clinical urgency; and (3) nurses consider air mattresses a preventative strategy irrespective of patient PI risks. Facilitators to improve guideline uptake were: (1) nurse-led interdisciplinary collaboration, (2) carer involvement and (3) easily accessible updated guidelines. Different Theoretical Domains Framework domains and behaviour change techniques were mapped to the identified nutrition- and mattress-related barriers.

Conclusion

The findings highlight three key nurses' attitudinal barriers to nutrition- and mattress-related guideline uptake, which inform the development of theory- and end-user-informed implementation interventions in pressure injury prevention.

Implications

An implementation strategical plan that addresses attitudinal barriers to improving guideline uptake for nutrition assessment and treatment and reducing air mattress overprescription appears critical in developing an intervention to enhance value-based practice, which will need to be evaluated in future trials.

Patient or Public Contribution

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Clinicians' and Patients' Experiences and Perceptions on the Prevention and Management of Surgical Site Infections: A Mixed‐Methods Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Aim

To explore clinicians' and patients' perceptions of implementing evidence-based practice to improve clinical practice for preventing and managing surgical site infections within hospital acute care settings.

Design

A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review using the Joanna Briggs Institute approach.

Methods

Included studies reported (i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' experiences and preferences for preventing and managing surgical site infections and (ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing surgical site infection prevention and management guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set were used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data and coded all findings into themes. Clinicians' and patients' views were also compared.

Data Sources

English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to March 2023 were identified from Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.

Results

Thirty-seven studies (16 quantitative, 17 qualitative, 3 mixed-methods and 1 quality improvement) met the inclusion criteria. Five main themes represent key factors believed to influence the implementation of evidence-based surgical site infection prevention and management guidelines: (1) Intentional non-adherence to insufficiently detailed and outdated guidelines, (2) Knowledge deficits on evidence-based SSI care bring about inconsistent clinical practice, (3) Collaborative interdisciplinary and patient-provider relationship to enhance guideline uptake, (4) Infection surveillance to improve patient safety and quality of life and (5) Negative physical and psychological impacts on patients.

Conclusion

The five themes reflect a need for updated hospital guidelines as a medium to improve surgical site infection knowledge and ensure consistent and evidence-based clinical practice. This review also highlights the significance of interdisciplinary and patient-provider collaboration and infection surveillance to facilitate guideline uptake. The effectiveness of intervention bundles designed to improve these aspects of care will need to be evaluated in future research.

Impact

A future intervention bundle that includes (1) ensuring up-to-date hospital guidelines/policies; (2) fostering collaborative interdisciplinary teamwork culture between physicians, nurses, podiatrists, pharmacists and allied health professionals; (3) encouraging patient or carer involvement in shared decision-making and (4) implementing audit and feedback mechanism on infection surveillance is proposed to improve SSI prevention and management in acute care settings.

Reporting Method

This paper followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Patient or Public Contribution

This mixed-methods systematic review collates evidence of clinicians' and patients' experiences and preferences for preventing and managing surgical site infections. The inclusion of hospital patients' perspectives supports the development of patient-centred interventions.

Trial Registration: The review protocol is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021250885). Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021250885

❌