Development and Testing of the Relational and Structural Components of Innovativeness Across Academia and Practice for Healthcare Progress Scale.

OBJECTIVE: Using data from 5 academic-practice sites across the United States, researchers developed and validated a scale to measure conditions that enable healthcare innovations. BACKGROUND: Academic-practice partnerships are a catalyst for innovation and healthcare development. However, limited theoretically grounded evidence exists to provide strategic direction for healthcare innovation across practice and academia. METHODS: Phase 1 of the analytical strategy involved scale development using 16 subject matter experts. Phase 2 involved pilot testing the scale. RESULTS: The final Innovativeness Across Academia and Practice for Healthcare Progress Scale (IA-APHPS) consisted of 7 domains: 3 relational domains, 2 structural domains, and 2 impact domains. The confirmatory factor analysis model fits well with a comparative fit index of 0.92 and a root-mean-square error of approximation of 0.06 (n = 477). CONCLUSION: As the 1st validated scale of healthcare innovation, the IA-APHPS allows nurses to use a diagnostic tool to facilitate innovative processes and outputs across academic-practice partnerships.

Using a Cascading Approach to Improve Multisite Study Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Multisite studies offer larger, more diverse samples to successfully capture populations and clinical practices of interest at the point of care. However, investigators face challenges with site recruitment and sampling, differences in clinical practices across sites, and data integrity. Addressing these issues a priori can improve the rigor and reproducibility of the research. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to describe a cascading approach to multisite research. An exemplar is provided of a study using this approach, which aimed to evaluate the prevalence of pain and the pain management practices provided to critically ill children in pediatric intensive care units in the United States. METHODS: The cascading approach includes two or more pilot study procedures with a progressively increasing number of sites prior to a full-scale study. Following each pilot, study procedures are evaluated; feedback was obtained from site personnel and content experts; procedures were revised accordingly; approvals were obtained; sites were trained; and the revised procedures are repeated with a larger, more diverse number of sites. RESULTS: In the exemplar provided, improvements in the efficiency and integrity of data collection were noted for the full-scale study following the pilots. All sites that completed the agreements and approvals for study participation were retained for the duration of the two pilots and full-scale study. DISCUSSION: Borrowing from principles of process improvement, the cascading approach allows knowledge to be gained regarding site differences and informs the revision of study procedures while potentially maximizing efficiency and data integrity, minimizing site burden, and maintaining site engagement for multisite studies.

Implementation of Peer Messengers to Deliver Feedback: An Observational Study to Promote Professionalism in Nursing.

BACKGROUND: The Co-Worker Observation System (CORS) is a tool and a process to address disrespectful behavior through feedback from trained peer messengers. First used by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs), CORS has been shown to decrease instances of unprofessional behaviors among physicians and APPs. The research team assessed the feasibility and fidelity of implementing CORS for staff nurses. METHODS: CORS was implemented at three academic medical centers using a project bundle with 10 essential implementation elements. Reports of unprofessional behavior among staff nurses that were submitted through the institution's electronic reporting system were screened through natural language processing software, coded by trained CORS coders using the Martinez taxonomy, and referred to a trained peer messenger to share the observations with the nurse. A mixed methods, observational design assessed feasibility and fidelity. RESULTS: A total of 590 reports from three sites were identified by the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy from September 1, 2019, through August 31, 2021. Most reports included more than one problematic behavior, each of which was coded. Of the peer messages, 76.5% were successfully documented using the debriefing survey as complete, 2.2% as awaiting messenger feedback, and 0.2% as awaiting messenger assignments (total of 78.9 % considered delivered). A total of 21.1% were not shared; 4.7% of reports were intentionally not shared because the issue stemmed from a new system or policy implementation (4.0%) or because of known factors affecting the nurse (0.7%). CONCLUSION: CORS can be implemented with staff nurses efficiently when nursing infrastructure is adequate.

Patient Voices in Hospital Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Hospitalized patients and their families may be reluctant to express safety concerns. We aimed to describe safety and quality concerns experienced by hospitalized patients and families and factors and outcomes surrounding decisions about voicing concerns, including those related to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 discharged inpatients or family members in a qualitative descriptive design. Some participants reported concern about staff competency or knowledge, communication and coordination, potential treatment errors, or care environment. Factors influencing feeling safe included healthcare team member characteristics, communication and coordination, and safe care expectations. Reasoning for voicing concerns often included personal characteristics. Reasons for not voicing concerns included feeling no action was needed or the concern was low priority. Outcomes for voicing a concern were categorized as resolved, disregarded, and unknown. These findings support the vital importance of open safety communication and trustworthy response to patients and family members who voice concerns.

Variability in qualifications for principal investigator status in research studies by nurses: A call for clarification.

PURPOSE: To describe existing guidance for qualifications of principal investigator s (PI s) of human subjects research and explore how they are operationalized for pediatric nurse scientists and clinical nurses in children's hospitals. DESIGN AND METHODS: After reviewing federal regulations, accreditation guidelines, and the literature, a convenience sample of members of the National Pediatric Nurse Scientist Collaborative (NPNSC). Participants completed a 33-item survey that included questions about Institutional Review Board (IRB), guidelines, and policies for PI status at their affiliated children's hospitals. RESULTS: The survey was electronically disseminated to 179 members of NPNSC through the Collaborative's listserv. Of the 39 members who responded, 90% hold a PhD and 80% practice in a free-standing children's hospital, nearly all of which (93%) are recognized as Magnet® hospitals. While the majority of respondents indicated that nurse scientists and other nurses were allowed to be PIs of research studies, educational requirements for PI status varied, with 3% requiring a PhD, 15% a baccalaureate degree, and 10% a graduate degree. 54% of respondents reported there was no degree requirement for PI status; however15% reported that even doctorally prepared nurse scientists cannot serve as PIs of research studies at their affiliated children''s hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The survey identified substantial variability in requirements for PI status and potential barriers to pediatric nurses conducting independent research as PIs at children's hospitals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Operationalizing existing guidance will expand inclusion of nurse scientist expertise in human subjects research.

Predicting Who Receives Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.

AIMS: The majority of patients in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) experience pain daily, while nonpharmacologic interventions are indicated for pain management in children, there is limited information on which nonpharmacologic interventions are provided in the PICU and which patients receive those interventions. The aim of this descriptive correlational secondary data analysis was to determine what nonpharmacologic interventions were recorded in the electronic health record of PICU patients and patterns in use by patient demographics. SETTING/SUBJECTS: All patients hospitalized in 15 participating PICUs are located within 12 unique children's hospitals across the United States were eligible for participation. METHODS: Nonpharmacologic interventions used in the PICU were identified and differences between patients who did and did not receive those interventions were examined using Fisher's exact test. A generalized linear mixed effects model was constructed to determine patient characteristics that predict nonpharmacologic pain intervention application. RESULTS: Of 220 enrolled patients, 97 (44%) had nonpharmacologic pain interventions recorded in their electronic health record. The most frequently recorded interventions included repositioning (65%), decreasing environmental stimuli (55%), caregiver presence (37%), distraction (23%), and music therapy (20%). Children who had moderate to severe pain were most likely to receive nonpharmacologic pain interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Nonpharmacologic pain management is applied inconsistently across PICUs and may be underdocumented or underutilized. Additional research is needed to determine when nurses use nonpharmacologic pain interventions, their rationale for applying these interventions across differing groups, and the effectiveness of these interventions in managing pain in critically ill children.

Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework.

BACKGROUND: An application-oriented implementation framework designed for clinicians and based on the Diffusion of Innovations theory included 81 implementation strategies with suggested timing for use within four implementation phases. The purpose of this research was to evaluate and strengthen the framework for clinician use and propose its usefulness in implementation research. METHODS: A multi-step, iterative approach guided framework revisions. Individuals requesting the use of the framework over the previous 7 years were sent an electronic questionnaire. Evaluation captured framework usability, generalizability, accuracy, and implementation phases for each strategy. Next, nurse leaders who use the framework pile sorted strategies for cultural domain analysis. Last, a panel of five EBP/implementation experts used these data and built consensus to strengthen the framework. RESULTS: Participants (n = 127/1578; 8% response) were predominately nurses (94%), highly educated (94% Master's or higher), and from across healthcare (52% hospital/system, 31% academia, and 7% community) in the USA (84%). Most (96%) reported at least some experience using the framework and 88% would use the framework again. A 4-point scale (1 = not/disagree to 4 = very/agree) was used. The framework was deemed useful (92%, rating 3-4), easy to use (72%), intuitive (67%), generalizable (100%), flexible and adaptive (100%), with accurate phases (96%), and accurate targets (100%). Participants (n = 51) identified implementation strategy timing within four phases (Cochran's Q); 54 of 81 strategies (66.7%, p < 0.05) were significantly linked to a specific phase; of these, 30 (55.6%) matched the original framework. Next, nurse leaders (n = 23) completed a pile sorting activity. Anthropac software was used to analyze the data and visualize it as a domain map and hierarchical clusters with 10 domains. Lastly, experts used these data and implementation science to refine and specify each of the 75 strategies, identifying phase, domain, actors, and function. Strategy usability, timing, and groupings were used to refine the framework. CONCLUSION: The Iowa Implementation for Sustainability Framework offers a typology to guide implementation for evidence-based healthcare. This study specifies 75 implementation strategies within four phases and 10 domains and begins to validate the framework. Standard use of strategy names is foundational to compare and understand when implementation strategies are effective, in what dose, for which topics, by whom, and in what context.

Implementation Science: Application of Evidence-Based Practice Models to Improve Healthcare Quality.

BACKGROUND: Translating research into practice is complex for clinicians, yet essential for high quality patient care. The field of implementation science evolved to address this gap by developing theoretical approaches to guide adoption and sustained implementation of practice changes. Clinicians commonly lack knowledge, time, and resources of how evidence-based practice (EBP) models can guide implementation, contributing to the knowledge-to-practice gap. AIM: This paper aimed to equip clinicians and other healthcare professionals with implementation science knowledge, confidence, and models to facilitate EBP change in their local setting and ultimately improve healthcare quality, safety, and population health outcomes. METHODS: The field of implementation science is introduced, followed by application of three select models. Models are applied to a clinical scenario to emphasize contextual factors, process, implementation strategies, and outcome evaluation. Key attributes, strengths, opportunities, and utilities of each model are presented, along with general resources for selecting and using published criteria to best fit clinical needs. Partnerships between implementation scientists and clinicians are highlighted to facilitate the uptake of evidence into practice. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Knowledge of implementation science can help clinicians adopt high-quality evidence into their practices. Application-oriented approaches can guide clinicians through the EBP processes. Clinicians can partner with researchers in advancing implementation science to continue to accelerate the adoption of evidence and reduce the knowledge-to-action gap.

Determinants of an evidence-based practice environment: an interpretive description.

BACKGROUND: Despite the available research to inform nursing practice, many patients still fail to receive evidence-based care. Several evidence-based practice (EBP) models have been developed to guide nurses through the steps in the process, yet these models have not been uniformly adopted or consistently used. The original purpose of this research was to gather perspectives and experiences of nurses using the Iowa Model of EBP to help inform its introduction into other practice settings. As a more in-depth understanding was gained, the emphasis of the study shifted towards understanding the determinants of the EBP environment. METHOD: The study was conducted in an 800-bed comprehensive academic medical centre in the USA with a 25-year history of using the Iowa Model of EBP. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with twelve nurses from various roles to ascertain their perspectives and experiences using the model. The interview transcripts were reviewed alongside relevant published literature and internal documents in a process of synthesising, theorising, and conceptualising. Data were collected during the first half of 2019. RESULTS: Four determinants of the local EBP environment were identified from the perspectives and experiences of participants: (1) the importance of a shared model to guide staff through the EBP process; (2) support for EBP in the form of education, hands-on training, and knowledge infrastructure; (3) active team facilitation by direct care nurses, nurse managers, nurse specialists, and nurse scientists; and (4) a culture and leadership that encourages EBP. CONCLUSION: Introducing an EBP model is an essential first step for an organisation to improve consistent and reliable evidence-based care; to be most effective, this should be done in conjunction with efforts to optimise the EBP environment.

EBP 2.0: Implementing and Sustaining Change: Implementing Improved Central Line Flushing Practices.

This is the eighth article in a series about evidence-based practice (EBP) that builds on AJN's award-winning previous series-Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step-published between 2009 and 2011 (to access the series, go to http://links.lww.com/AJN/A133). This follow-up series features exemplars illustrating the various strategies that can be used to implement EBP changes-one of the most challenging steps in the EBP process.

Testing of the Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Survey.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' knowledge and skills for evidence-based practice (EBP) and organizational climate are important for science-based care. There is scant literature regarding aligning organizational culture with EBP implementation and even less for unit and organizational culture. The Nursing EBP Survey examines individual, unit, and organizational factors to better understand registered nurses' (RN) self-reported EBP. AIMS: Establish and confirm factor loading, reliability, and discriminant validity for the untested Nursing EBP Survey. METHODS: The study employed a descriptive cross-sectional survey design and was targeted for RNs. The setting included 14 hospitals and 680 medical offices in Southern California. The 1999 instrument consisted of 22 items; 7 items were added in 2005 for 29 items. The questionnaire used a 5 point, Likert-type scale. The survey website opened in November 2016 and closed after 23 weeks. Psychometric testing and factor determination used parallel analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and ANOVA post hoc comparisons. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and eighty-one RNs completed the survey. All factor loadings in the CFA model were positive and significant (p < .001). All standardized loadings ranged from .70 to .94. The covariance estimate between Factor 1 and Factor 2 was marginally significant (p = .07). All other covariances and error variances were significant (p < .001). Final factor names were Practice Climate (Factor 1), Data Collection (Factor 2), Evidence Appraisal (Factor 3), Implementation (Factor 4), and Access to Evidence (Factor 5). Four of 5 factors showed significant differences between education levels (p < .05 level). All factors showed significant differences (p < .05) between inpatient and ambulatory staff, with higher scores for inpatient settings. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Nurses' knowledge, attitudes, and skills for EBP vary. The 2019 Nursing EBP survey offers RNs direction to plan and support improvement in evidence-based outcomes and tailors future EBP initiatives.

Evidence-Based Practice Change Champion Program Improves Quality Care.

Nurses need training and mentoring to lead evidence-based practice (EBP) improvements. An array of roles have been reported to have a positive impact on EBP adoption. A training program was created to assist point-of-care nurses and nurse leader partners in operationalizing the EBP Change Champion role to address priority quality indicators. The program, a case exemplar, and lessons learned are described with implications for leaders responsible for promoting EBP to improve quality care.

Growth Measurement Practices from a National Survey of Neonatal Nurses.

PURPOSE: To describe neonatal nurses' growth measurement practices, attitudes, knowledge, bases of practice knowledge, and barriers and facilitators for changing practice; and to identify differences in practices and knowledge by nursing organization, unit type, education, and experience. DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey of U.S. neonatal nurses was distributed through two neonatal nursing organizations. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 301 nurses. Some evidence-based practices (EBPs) were infrequently reported including recording frontal-occipital head circumference (FOC) and length using 0.1 cm increments (17.9% and 17.6%, respectively); measuring FOC, weight, and length more than once before recording (61.9%, 27.2%, and 39.6%, respectively); and for length, using a length board instead of tape measure (19.4%), with a second person assisting (25.1%), with Frankfort plane head positioning (3.3%), and measuring from crown to heels of both feet (19.1%). Most nurses perceived their measurements as accurate or highly accurate (96.7% for FOC, 99.3% for weight, and 87.1% for length). The mean percentage correct on knowledge items was 68.1%. NICU nurses scored slightly better than well-newborn nurses (mean 69.3% correct vs. 65.1% correct, p = .04). Most based measurement practices on clinical practice guidelines (86.6%) and unit policies and procedures (85.9%). Team culture (33.3%) and insufficient resources (32.6%) were the most common barriers to EBP. The support of nurse managers (70.0%) and unit educators (68.5%) were common facilitators. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Knowledge gaps and practice improvement areas were identified. Results can inform interventions to improve the accuracy and reliability of neonatal growth measurement practices.

Disparities in Donor Human Milk Supplementation Among Well Newborns.

BACKGROUND: Donor human milk supplementation for healthy newborns has increased. Racial-ethnic disparities in supplementation have been described in the neonatal intensive care unit but not in the well newborn setting. RESEARCH AIM: The aim of this study was to identify maternal characteristics associated with donor human milk versus formula supplementation in the well newborn unit. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study includes dyads of well newborns and their mothers (N = 678) who breastfed and supplemented with formula (n = 372) or donor human milk (n = 306) during the birth hospitalization at a single hospital in the midwestern United States. Maternal characteristics and infant feeding type were extracted from medical records. Chi-square and logistic regression were used to examine associations between maternal characteristics and feeding type. RESULTS: Nonwhite women were less likely to use donor human milk. Compared to non-Hispanic white women, the largest disparity was with Hispanic (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.65]), then non-Hispanic black (adjusted OR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.13, 0.76]) and Asian women (adjusted OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16, 0.74]). Lower donor human milk use was associated with primary language other than English and public versus private insurance. CONCLUSION: The goal of improving public health through breastfeeding promotion may be inhibited without targeting donor human milk programs to these groups. Identifying the drivers of these disparities is necessary to inform person-centered interventions that address the needs of women with diverse backgrounds.

Pain Assessment Practices in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.

PURPOSE: Pain assessment is the first step in managing pain; however, this can be challenging, particularly in settings such as the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). This paper reports the current pain assessment practices from a study that was conducted describing the prevalence of pain, pain assessment, painful procedures, interventions, and characteristics of critically-ill children. Specifically, this paper addresses the child's communicative ability, pain scales, and characteristics of pain. DESIGN AND METHODS: The primary study was a cross-sectional, multi-site, descriptive design. Data from a 24-hour time period were collected from medical records and bedside nurses. RESULTS: Data were collected from the records of 220 children across 15 PICUs. The average number of pain assessments per child was 11.5 (SD 5.8, range 1-28). Seven behavioral scales and five self-report scales were used. There were times when no scale was used, "assume pain present" was recorded, or a sedation scale was documented. Twelve pain scales, including the target population, scoring, psychometric properties, and clinical utility are described. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate that a wide range of pain assessment tools are used, including behavioral scales for children unable to self-report. IMPLICATIONS: Foremost, the appropriate assessment method needs to be chosen for each child to manage pain. Knowledge of the criteria for the use of each pain assessment scale will help the clinician select the appropriate scale to use for each child. The practice of "assume pain present," as well as standardization of pain scales, and clinical support tools needs further investigation.