Nurse managers' perceptions of the prospective acceptability of an implementation leadership training programme: A qualitative descriptive study.

AIM: To explore the prospective acceptability of an implementation leadership training programme prototype for nurse managers in China to implement evidence-based practices, from the perspectives of potential programme participants and deliverers. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in Spring 2022 at three tertiary hospitals in Hunan, China. METHODS: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with unit-level nurse managers (n = 14), including 12 potential participants, and two potential deliverers that have been involved in developing the programme prototype. Interview questions and thematic analysis were guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: After reviewing the programme content, potential participants and deliverers reported that unit nurse managers would benefit from engaging in the programme, acknowledging that the programme fit with professional nursing values for implementing research evidence. They expressed positive views about being involved in producing academic papers through the training process, and interactive multi-modal training activities such as group work, experience-sharing and coaching. Seven participants were not very confident about being fully engaged in the training, as they could not navigate the English research literature. Both participants and deliverers highlighted factors that would influence their participation, including time constraints, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and support from senior organizational leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The training programme prototype was perceived to be useful and acceptable. The multimodal training activities were considered a strength and managers expressed an interest in writing academic papers about their implementation processes. Support from senior hospital leaders and programme deliverers was identified as critical to the training programme's success. IMPACT: The study helps understand nurse managers' perceptions and concerns of participating in an implementation leadership training programme and could inform the development and refinement of similar programmes in various nursing contexts globally.

Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional perspectives on planning the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To explore youth, caregiver and staff perspectives on their vision of trauma-informed care, and to identify and understand potential considerations for the implementation of a trauma-informed care programme in an inpatient mental health unit within a paediatric hospital. DESIGN AND METHODS: We applied the Interpretive Description approach, guided by complexity theory and the Implementation Roadmap, and used Applied Thematic Analysis methods. FINDINGS: Twenty-five individuals participated in individual or group interviews between March and June 2022, including 21 healthcare professionals, 3 youth and 1 caregiver. We identified two overarching themes. The first theme, 'Understanding and addressing the underlying reasons for distress', related to participants' understanding and vision of TIC in the current setting comprising: (a) 'Participants' understanding of TIC'; (b) 'Trauma screening and trauma processing within TIC'; (c) 'Taking "a more individualized approach"'; (d) 'Unit programming'; and (e) "Connecting to the community". The second theme, 'Factors that support or limit successful TIC implementation' comprises: (a) 'The need for a broad "cultural shift"'; (b) 'The physical environment on the unit'; and (c) 'Factors that may limit successful implementation'. CONCLUSION: We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of engagement with youth, caregivers and staff in trauma-informed care delivery and implementation, (b) trauma-informed care core programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit success in implementing trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration (partnering with external organizations and sectors). IMPACT: When implementing TIC, there is an ongoing need to increase clarity regarding TIC interventions and implementation initiatives. Youth, caregiver and healthcare professional participants shared considerations important for planning the delivery and implementation of trauma-informed care in their setting. We identified five key domains to consider within trauma-informed care implementation: (a) the centrality of relational engagement, (b) trauma-informed care programme components, (c) factors that may support or limit successful implementation of trauma-informed care within the mental health unit and (d) hospital-wide and (e) the importance of intersectoral collaboration. Organizations wishing to implement trauma-informed care should consider ongoing engagement with all relevant knowledge user groups throughout the process. REPORTING METHOD: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The local hospital research institute's Patient and Family Advisory Committee reviewed the draft study methods and provided feedback.

Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients. METHOD: We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds). CONCLUSION: This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.

Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO): a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention on recognition and response to clinical deterioration.

BACKGROUND: Most hospitals use physiological signs to trigger an urgent clinical review. We investigated whether facilitation could improve nurses' vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for deteriorating patients. METHODS: In a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomised 36 inpatient wards at four acute hospitals to receive standard clinical practice guideline (CPG) dissemination to ward staff (n=18) or facilitated implementation for 6 months following standard dissemination (n=18). Expert, hospital and ward facilitators tailored facilitation techniques to promote nurses' CPG adherence. Patient records were audited pre-intervention, 6 and 12 months post-intervention on randomly selected days. Escalation of care as per hospital policy was the primary outcome at 6 and 12 months after implementation. Patients, nurses and assessors were blinded to group assignment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: From 10 383 audits, improved escalation as per hospital policy was evident in the intervention group at 6 months (OR 1.47, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.04)) with a complete set of vital sign measurements sustained at 12 months (OR 1.22, 95% CI (1.02 to 1.47)). There were no significant differences in escalation of care as per hospital policy between study groups at 6 or 12 months post-intervention. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, a significant change from T0 in mean length of stay between groups at 12 months favoured the intervention group (-2.18 days, 95% CI (-3.53 to -0.82)). CONCLUSION: Multi-level facilitation significantly improved escalation as per hospital policy at 6 months in the intervention group that was not sustained at 12 months. The intervention group had increased vital sign measurement by nurses, as well as shorter lengths of stay for patients at 12 months. Further research is required to understand the dose of facilitation required to impact clinical practice behaviours and patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616000544471p.

Medical end-of-life practices among Canadian physicians: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Medical end-of-life practices are hotly debated in Canada, and data from other countries are used to support arguments. The objective of this pilot study was twofold: to adapt and validate a questionnaire designed to measure the prevalence of these practices in Canada and the underlying decision-making process, and to assess the feasibility of a nationally representative study. METHODS: In phase 1, questionnaires from previous studies were adapted to the Canadian context through consultations with a multidisciplinary committee and based on a scoping review. The modified questionnaire was validated through cognitive interviews with 14 physicians from medical specialties associated with a higher probability of being involved with dying patients recruited by means of snowball sampling. In phase 2, we selected a stratified random sample of 300 Canadian physicians in active practice from a national medical directory and used the modified tailored method design for mail and Web surveys. There were 4 criteria for success: modified questions are clearly understood; response patterns for sensitive questions are similar to those for other questions; respondents are comparable to the overall sampling frame; and mean questionnaire completion time is less than 20 minutes. RESULTS: Phase 1: main modifications to the questionnaire were related to documentation of all other medical practices (including practices intended to prolong life) and a question on the proportionality of drugs used. The final questionnaire contained 45 questions in a booklet style. Phase 2: of the 280 physicians with valid addresses, 87 (31.1%) returned the questionnaire; 11 of the 87 declined to participate, for a response rate of 27.1% (n = 76). Most respondents (64 [84%]) completed the mail questionnaire. All the criteria for success were met. INTERPRETATION: It is feasible to study medical end-of-life practices, even for practices that are currently illegal, including the intentional use of lethal drugs. Results from this pilot study support conducting a large national study, but additional strategies would be necessary to improve the response rate.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is advocated because of its potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. However, current evidence suggests that shared decision-making has not yet been widely adopted by health professionals. Therefore, a systematic review was performed on the barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice as perceived by health professionals. METHODS: Covering the period from 1990 to March 2006, PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts were searched for studies in English or French. The references from included studies also were consulted. Studies were included if they reported on health professionals' perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in their practices. Shared decision-making was defined as a joint process of decision making between health professionals and patients, or as decision support interventions including decision aids, or as the active participation of patients in decision making. No study design was excluded. Quality of the studies included was assessed independently by two of the authors. Using a pre-established taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines in practice, content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Thirty-one publications covering 28 unique studies were included. Eleven studies were from the UK, eight from the USA, four from Canada, two from The Netherlands, and one from each of the following countries: France, Mexico, and Australia. Most of the studies used qualitative methods exclusively (18/28). Overall, the vast majority of participants (n = 2784) were physicians (89%). The three most often reported barriers were: time constraints (18/28), lack of applicability due to patient characteristics (12/28), and lack of applicability due to the clinical situation (12/28). The three most often reported facilitators were: provider motivation (15/28), positive impact on the clinical process (11/28), and positive impact on patient outcomes (10/28). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reveals that interventions to foster implementation of shared decision-making in clinical practice will need to address a broad range of factors. It also reveals that on this subject there is very little known about any health professionals others than physicians. Future studies about implementation of shared decision-making should target a more diverse group of health professionals.