Nursing-sensitive outcomes for the provision of pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This aim of this review is to identify and map nursing-sensitive outcomes for the provision of pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities that are currently reported in the literature. INTRODUCTION: The experience of pain is highly individualized and subjective, with physiological, biochemical, and psychological differences contributing to pain perception. Pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities are at increased risk of ubiquitous pain exposure. Pain management effectiveness can be determined through the measurement of nursing-sensitive outcomes, which have not been mapped in the context of pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and gray literature discussing nursing pain management in pediatric populations with intellectual disabilities will be included. No date limits will be applied. Only studies published in English will be considered. METHODS: This review will be guided by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The search strategy will aim to locate published and unpublished literature using the databases CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, PsycINFO (ProQuest), LILACS, SciELO, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Titles and abstracts, and then full-text studies, will be selected and reviewed by 2 independent researchers against the inclusion criteria. Content analysis using the NNQR-C, C-HOBIC, NDNQI, and Donabedian model frameworks will be used for data extraction and organization, accompanied by charted results and narrative summaries, as appropriate.

Identifying strategies to support implementation of interprofessional primary care teams in Nova Scotia: Results of a survey and knowledge sharing event.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional primary care teams (IPCTs) work together to enhance care. Despite evidence on the benefits of IPCTs, implementation remains challenging. This research aims to 1) identify and prioritize barriers and enablers, and 2) co-develop team-level strategies to support IPCT implementation in Nova Scotia, Canada. METHODS: Healthcare providers and staff of IPCTs were invited to complete an online survey to identify barriers and enablers, and the degree to which each item impacted the functioning of their team. Top ranked items were identified using the sum of frequency x impact for each response. A virtual knowledge sharing event was held to identify strategies to address local barriers and enablers that impact team functioning. RESULTS: IPCT members (n = 117), with a mix of clinic roles and experience, completed the survey. The top three enablers identified were access to technological tools to support their role, standardized processes for using the technological tools, and having a team manager to coordinate collaboration. The top three barriers were limited opportunity for daily team communication, lack of conflict resolution strategies, and lack of capacity building opportunities. IPCT members, administrators, and patients attended the knowledge sharing event (n = 33). Five strategies were identified including: 1) balancing patient needs and provider scope of practice, 2) holding regular and accessible meetings, 3) supporting team development opportunities, 4) supporting professional development, and 5) supporting involvement in non-clinical activities. INTERPRETATION: This research contextualized evidence to further understand local perspectives and experiences of barriers and enablers to the implementation of IPCTs. The knowledge exchange event identified actionable strategies that IPCTs and healthcare administrators can tailor to support teams and care for patients.

Interprofessional collaboration between health professional learners when breaking bad news: a scoping review of teaching approaches.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to examine teaching approaches used to teach interprofessional health professional learners how to break bad news collaboratively. INTRODUCTION: When breaking bad news, health professionals must be equipped to deliver it skillfully and collaboratively; however, the literature shows that this skill receives little attention in program curricula. Consequently, health professionals can feel inadequately prepared to deliver bad news, which may lead to increased burnout, distress, and compassion fatigue. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that describe teaching approaches used to teach learners how to break bad news collaboratively were considered for inclusion. Studies must have included 2 or more undergraduate and/or postgraduate learners working toward a professional health or social care qualification/degree at a university or college. Studies including lay, complementary and alternative, or non-health/social care learners were excluded. Due to the primary language of the research team, only English articles were included. METHODS: The JBI 3-step process was followed for developing the search. Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, Education Resource Complete (EBSCOhost), and Social Work Abstracts (EBSCOhost). The initial search was conducted on February 11, 2021, and was updated on May 17, 2022. Title and abstract screening and data extraction were completed by 2 independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Results are presented in tabular or diagrammatic format, together with a narrative summary. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the scoping review, with a range of methodologies and designs (pre/post surveys, qualitative, feasibility, mixed methods, cross-sectional, quality improvement, and methodological triangulation). The majority of papers were from the United States (n=8; 61.5%). All but 1 study used simulation-enhanced interprofessional education as the preferred method to teach interprofessional cohorts of learners how to break bad news. The bulk of simulations were face-to-face (n=11; 84.6%). Three studies (23.1%) were reported as high fidelity, while the remainder did not disclose fidelity. All studies that used simulation to teach students how to break bad news utilized simulated participants/patients to portray patients and/or family in the simulations. The academic level of participants varied, with the majority noted as undergraduate (n=7; 53.8%); 3 studies (23.1%) indicated a mix of undergraduate and graduate participants, 2 (15.4%) were graduate only, and 1 (7.7%) was not disclosed. There was a range of health professional programs represented by participants, with medicine and nursing equally in the majority (n=10; 76.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-enhanced interprofessional education was the most reported teaching approach to teach interprofessional cohorts of students how to break bad news collaboratively. Inconsistencies were noted in the language used to describe bad news, use of breaking bad news and interprofessional competency frameworks, and integration of interprofessional education and simulation best practices. Further research should focus on other interprofessional approaches to teaching how to break bad news, how best to incorporate interprofessional competencies into interprofessional breaking bad news education, whether interprofessional education is enhancing collaborative breaking bad news, and whether what is learned about breaking bad news is being retained over the long-term and incorporated into practice. Future simulation-specific research should explore whether and how the Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice are being implemented and whether simulation is resulting in student satisfaction and enhanced learning.

Barriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams: a narrative review of the literature using the consolidated framework for implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional primary care teams have been introduced across Canada to improve access (e.g., a regular primary care provider, timely access to care when needed) to and quality of primary care. However, the quality and speed of team implementation has not kept pace with increasing access issues. The aim of this research was to use an implementation framework to categorize and describe barriers and enablers to team implementation in primary care. METHODS: A narrative review that prioritized systematic reviews and evidence syntheses was conducted. A search using pre-defined terms was conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, and potentially relevant grey literature was identified through ad hoc Google searches and hand searching of health organization websites. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize barriers and enablers into five domains: (1) Features of Team Implementation; (2) Government, Health Authorities and Health Organizations; (3) Characteristics of the Team; (4) Characteristics of Team Members; and (5) Process of Implementation. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 19 of 435 articles that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Most barriers and enablers were categorized into two domains of the CFIR: Characteristics of the Team and Government, Health Authorities, and Health Organizations. Key themes identified within the Characteristics of the Team domain were team-leadership, including designating a manager responsible for day-to-day activities and facilitating collaboration; clear governance structures, and technology supports and tools that facilitate information sharing and communication. Key themes within the Government, Health Authorities, and Health Organizations domain were professional remuneration plans, regulatory policy, and interprofessional education. Other key themes identified in the Features of Team Implementation included the importance of good data and research on the status of teams, as well as sufficient and stable funding models. Positive perspectives, flexibility, and feeling supported were identified in the Characteristics of Team Members domain. Within the Process of Implementation domain, shared leadership and human resources planning were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams using the CFIR were identified, which enables stakeholders and teams to tailor implementation of teams at the local level to impact the accessibility and quality of primary care.

Identifying and Mapping Canadian Dietetic Students' Interaction(s) with Simulation-Based Education: A Scoping Review.

This scoping review mapped literature available on Canadian dietetics, nutrition, and foods students' and graduates' interaction(s) with simulation-based education (SBE) during undergraduate and/or practicum. One certified Librarian led the preliminary search (Summer, 2021), while three Joanna Briggs Institute-trained reviewers conducted the comprehensive search via MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), and Google (February 2022). A data extraction tool designed specifically for the study objectives and research inclusion criteria was used. We recorded 354 results and included 7. Seven types of SBE were recorded: (i) comprehensive care plan (n = 2); (ii) nutritional diagnosis/assessment (n = 2); (iii) body composition assessment (n = 1); (iv) introducing patient to dysphagia care (n = 1); (v) nutrition counselling session (n = 1); (vi) nutrition-focused physical examination (n = 1); and (vii) professional communications via social media (n = 1). Results indicate that Canadian dietitian-led SBE includes the use of simulated patients, nutritional diagnosis/assessment, and the creation of comprehensive care plans, among others. Students have been assessed for performance of trained tasks through exams, self-awareness surveys, and interviews, and SBE activities have been evaluated for effectiveness through questionnaires and interviews with users/students. Canadian literature is limited, and more can be learned by exploring the global context within and outside the profession.

Interprofessional collaboration between health professional learners when breaking bad news: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to examine pedagogies used to teach interprofessional health learners how to break bad news collaboratively. INTRODUCTION: Breaking bad news is a skill health care professionals must be equipped to deliver well, yet literature shows that this skill receives little attention in program curricula. Consequently, health care professionals feel inadequately prepared to deliver bad news, leading to greater burnout, distress, and fatigue. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that describe pedagogies used to teach breaking bad news will be considered for inclusion. Studies must include two or more undergraduate and/or postgraduate learners working towards a professional health or social care qualification or degree at a university or college. Studies including lay, complementary and alternative, or non-health or social care professional learners will be excluded. METHODS: The JBI three-step process will be followed for developing the search. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Education Resource Centre, and Social Work Abstracts. Title and abstract screening through to data extraction will be completed by two independent reviewers and any disagreements will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. Results will be presented in tabular or diagrammatic form, together with a narrative summary.