Attitudes towards people who use substances: a survey of mental health clinicians from an urban hospital in British Columbia.

Stigma and other barriers limit harm reduction practice integration by clinicians within acute psychiatric settings. The objective of our study was to explore mental health clinician attitudes towards substance use and associations with clinical experience and education level. The Brief Substance Abuse Attitudes Survey was completed among a convenience sample of mental health clinicians in Vancouver, British Columbia. Five predefined attitude subgroups were evaluated. Respondents' attitudes towards substance use were associated with level of education on questions from two (non-stereotyping [p = 0.012] and treatment optimism [p = 0.008]) subscales. In pairwise comparisons, postgraduate education was associated with more positive attitudes towards relapse risk (p = 0.004) when compared to diploma-educated respondents. No significant associations were observed between years of clinical experience and participant responses. Our findings highlight important aspects of clinician attitudes that could improve harm reduction education and integration into clinical practice.

Self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices: a case study of one health system's ongoing journey from clinical concern to practice and policy response.

BACKGROUND: Overdose-associated deaths and morbidity related to substance use is a global public health emergency with devastating social and economic costs. Complications of substance use are most pronounced among people who inject drugs (PWID), particularly infections, resulting in increased risk of hospitalization. PWID often require intravenous access for medical treatments such as antibiotics; however, vascular access may be limited due to the impacts of long-term self-venipuncture. While vascular access devices including peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) allow reliable and sustained routes of administration for indicated therapies, the use of PICCs among PWID presents unique challenges. The incidence and risks associated with self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices (SIVAD) is one such concern for which there is limited evidence and absence of formal practice guidance. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the experience of a multidisciplinary team at a health organization in Vancouver, Canada, working to characterize the incidence, patient and healthcare provider perspectives, and overall impact of SIVAD. The case study of SIVAD begins with a patient's perspective, including patient rationale for SIVAD, understanding of risks and the varying responses given by healthcare providers following disclosure of SIVAD. Using the limited literature available on the subject, we summarize the intersection of SIVAD and substance use and outline known and anticipated health risks. The case study is further contextualized by experience from a Vancouver in-hospital Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), where 37% of all individual visits involve SIVAD. The case study concludes by describing the systematic process by which local clinical guidance for SIVAD harm reduction was developed with stakeholder engagement, medical ethics consultation, expert consensus guideline development and implementation with staff education and planned research evaluation. CONCLUSION: SIVAD is encountered with enough frequency in an urban healthcare setting in Vancouver, Canada, to warrant an organizational approach. This case study aims to enhance appreciation of SIVAD as a common and complex clinical issue with anticipated health risks. The authors conclude that using a harm reduction lens for SIVAD policy and research can provide benefit to clinicians and patients by offering a clear and a consistent healthcare response to this common issue.

Implementation of a nurse-led overdose prevention site in a hospital setting: lessons learned from St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: In May 2018, St. Paul's Hospital (SPH) in Vancouver (Canada) opened an outdoor peer-led overdose prevention site (OPS) operated in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and RainCity Housing. At the end of 2020, the partnered OPS moved to a new location, which created a gap in service for SPH inpatients and outpatients. To address this gap, which was magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic, SPH opened a nurse-led OPS in February 2021. This paper describes the steps leading to the implementation of the nurse-led OPS, its impact, and lessons learned. METHODS: Four steps paved the way for the opening of the OPS: (1) identifying the problem, (2) seeking ethics guidance, (3) adapting policies and practices, and (4) supporting and training staff. RESULTS: The OPS is open between 10:00 and 20:00 and staffed by two nurses per shift. It is accessible to all patients including inpatients, patients in the Emergency Department, and patients attending outpatient services. Between February 1, 2021 and October 23, 2021, the OPS recorded 1612 visits for the purpose of injection, for an average weekly visit number of 42. A total of 46 overdoses were recorded in that 9-month period. Thirty-seven (80%) required administration of naloxone and 12 (26%) required a code blue response. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the unique nature of our OPS, we learned many important lessons in the process leading to the opening of the site and the months that followed. We conclude the paper with lessons learned grouped into six main categories, namely engagement, communication, access, staff education and support, data collection, and safety.

Turning knowledge into action at the point-of-care: the collective experience of nurses facilitating the implementation of evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is considered a way of enabling clinicians to implement evidence into practice by problem solving and providing support. Practice development is a well-established movement in the United Kingdom that incorporates the use of facilitators, but in Canada, the role is more obtuse. Few investigations have observed the process of facilitation as described by individuals experienced in guideline implementation in North America. AIM: To describe the tacit knowledge regarding facilitation embedded in the experiences of nurses implementing evidence into practice. METHODS: Twenty nurses from across Canada were purposively selected to attend an interactive knowledge translation symposium to examine what has worked and what has not in implementing evidence in practice. This study is an additional in-depth analysis of data collected at the symposium that focuses on facilitation as an intervention to enhance evidence uptake. Critical incident technique was used to elicit examples to examine the nurses' facilitation experiences. Participants shared their experiences with one another and completed initial data analysis and coding collaboratively. The data were further thematically analyzed using the qualitative inductive approach of constant comparison. RESULTS: A number of factors emerged at various levels associated with the successes and failures of participants' efforts to facilitate evidence-based practice. Successful implementation related to: (a) focus on a priority issue, (b) relevant evidence, (c) development of strategic partnerships, (d) the use of multiple strategies to effect change, and (e) facilitator characteristics and approach. Negative factors influencing the process were: (a) poor engagement or ownership, (b) resource deficits, (c) conflict, (d) contextual issues, and (e) lack of evaluation and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Factors at the individual, environmental, organizational, and cultural level influence facilitation of evidence-based practice in real situations at the point-of-care. With a greater understanding of factors contributing to successful or unsuccessful facilitation, future research should focus on analyzing facilitation interventions tailored to address barriers and enhance facilitators of evidence uptake.

Facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing: a focused review of concept and meaning.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is proposed as an important strategy to assist practitioners to implement evidence into practice. However, from a front-line nursing perspective, what is actually involved in facilitation, particularly in regards to research utilization, is poorly understood. AIM: To examine the current state of knowledge surrounding the concept of facilitation as a role and process in the implementation of research findings within the nursing context. Building on a previous concept analysis, we examined how facilitation has evolved over the last decade, particularly focusing on the practical elements (e.g., what it entails to operationalize and implement facilitation in nursing). METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases identified theory and research-based nursing papers explicitly focused on facilitation in research utilization. Through a content analysis, we examined how the concept is being used, described, and applied within nursing. RESULTS: Facilitation continues to be described as supporting and enabling practitioners to improve practice through evidence implementation. Certain aspects of the role and the strategies being employed to promote change are more evident. It was possible to formulate these into a taxonomy. Key findings include: * facilitation is now being viewed as an individual role as well as a process involving individuals and groups; * project management/leadership are important components; * no matter which approach is selected, tailoring facilitation to the local context is critical; * there is a growing emphasis on evaluation, particularly linking outcomes to nursing actions. CONCLUSIONS: Further understanding of what facilitators are actually doing to enable changes in nursing practice based on research findings will provide the groundwork for the design and evaluation of practical strategies for evidence-based practice in nursing. Research is needed to clarify how facilitation may be used to implement change in nursing practice along with evaluation of the effectiveness of various approaches.

Why (we think) facilitation works: insights from organizational learning theory.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is a guided interactional process that has been popularized in health care. Its popularity arises from its potential to support uptake and application of scientific knowledge that stands to improve clinical and managerial decision-making, practice, and ultimately patient outcomes and organizational performance. While this popular concept has garnered attention in health services research, we know that both the content of facilitation and its impact on knowledge implementation vary. The basis of this variation is poorly understood, and understanding is hampered by a lack of conceptual clarity. DISCUSSION: In this paper, we argue that our understanding of facilitation and its effects is limited in part by a lack of clear theoretical grounding. We propose a theoretical home for facilitation in organizational learning theory. Referring to extant literature on facilitation and drawing on theoretical literature, we discuss the features of facilitation that suggest its role in contributing to learning capacity. We describe how facilitation may contribute to generating knowledge about the application of new scientific knowledge in health-care organizations. Facilitation's promise, we suggest, lies in its potential to stimulate higher-order learning in organizations through experimenting with, generating learning about, and sustaining small-scale adaptations to organizational processes and work routines. The varied effectiveness of facilitation observed in the literature is associated with the presence or absence of factors known to influence organizational learning, since facilitation itself appears to act as a learning mechanism. We offer propositions regarding the relationships between facilitation processes and key organizational learning concepts that have the potential to guide future work to further our understanding of the role that facilitation plays in learning and knowledge generation.

Examining the use of facilitation within guideline dissemination and implementation studies in nursing.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is a mechanism for implementing practice guidelines in nursing. Facilitation aims to prepare clinicians and organisations for implementation and to provide support and help in problem-solving as implementation progresses. However, any evidence supporting its effectiveness is limited due to a lack of empirical testing. AIM: : To examine the presence and role of facilitation in studies included in an existing systematic review of guideline dissemination and implementation in nursing. METHODS: Using a descriptive, exploratory approach, we examined 28 studies for elements of facilitation that were included in a review of the effectiveness of interventions to increase the use of practice guidelines in nursing. We conducted a content analysis of a subset of studies that included facilitation activity to gather descriptions of study interventions, characteristics and skills required, use of theory, and effectiveness. Extracted data were analysed using a previously developed taxonomy containing 53 activities related to facilitation. RESULTS: Ten of the 28 studies exhibited evidence of facilitation process and activity. Only two of the 10 studies explicitly referred to 'facilitators,' with just one indicating that facilitators were a part of the implementation intervention being tested. We identified facilitation processes in the eight remaining studies even though the authors did not report it as such. All studies used facilitation activities in combination with other interventions, the most common being educational meetings or distribution of educational materials. We found evidence related to facilitation for 37 of the 53 facilitation activities (70%) in the taxonomy in at least one study or across studies. An additional three novel facilitation-related activities were identified. Most studies exhibited evidence of external facilitation activity whereby researchers outside of the setting assisted nurses to implement guidelines. Theory informed the development or selection of implementation interventions in 60% (n = 6) of the studies. Drawing conclusions regarding effectiveness of interventions involving facilitation was difficult due to the small number of studies that were included. Furthermore, the included studies varied in the detail provided about the intervention or combination of interventions tested and how interventions were delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Using an existing systematic review for the purpose of gaining insight into additional research questions was valuable. Although facilitation process and activities are used in interventions to enhance guideline uptake in nursing, these were not conceptualized or referred to by researchers as 'facilitation.' As such, facilitation may be a broader intervention that includes organizing and delivering other interventions. Further research is required to evaluate the relationship between facilitation and other guideline implementation interventions in nursing. The facilitation uncovered within included studies was located primarily in the context of research as it was the researchers who performed most of the facilitation activities. Future inquiries must explore non-researcher-initiated and delivered facilitation intervention activities by following local groups naturally within clinical contexts.

Guideline adaptation and implementation planning: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of high-quality practice guidelines for local use has been advanced as an efficient means to improve acceptability and applicability of evidence-informed care. In a pan-Canadian study, we examined how cancer care groups adapted pre-existing guidelines to their unique context and began implementation planning. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, case-study design, five cases were purposefully sampled from self-identified groups and followed as they used a structured method and resources for guideline adaptation. Cases received the ADAPTE Collaboration toolkit, facilitation, methodological and logistical support, resources and assistance as required. Documentary and primary data collection methods captured individual case experience, including monthly summaries of meeting and field notes, email/telephone correspondence, and project records. Site visits, process audits, interviews, and a final evaluation forum with all cases contributed to a comprehensive account of participant experience. RESULTS: Study cases took 12 to >24 months to complete guideline adaptation. Although participants appreciated the structure, most found the ADAPTE method complex and lacking practical aspects. They needed assistance establishing individual guideline mandate and infrastructure, articulating health questions, executing search strategies, appraising evidence, and achieving consensus. Facilitation was described as a multi-faceted process, a team effort, and an essential ingredient for guideline adaptation. While front-line care providers implicitly identified implementation issues during adaptation, they identified a need to add an explicit implementation planning component. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adaptation is a positive initial step toward evidence-informed care, but adaptation (vs. 'de novo' development) did not meet expectations for reducing time or resource commitments. Undertaking adaptation is as much about the process (engagement and capacity building) as it is about the product (adapted guideline). To adequately address local concerns, cases found it necessary to also search and appraise primary studies, resulting in hybrid (adaptation plus de novo) guideline development strategies that required advanced methodological skills.Adaptation was found to be an action element in the knowledge translation continuum that required integration of an implementation perspective. Accordingly, the adaptation methodology and resources were reformulated and substantially augmented to provide practical assistance to groups not supported by a dedicated guideline panel and to provide more implementation planning support. The resulting framework is called CAN-IMPLEMENT.

Following a natural experiment of guideline adaptation and early implementation: a mixed-methods study of facilitation.

BACKGROUND: Facilitation is emerging as an important strategy in the uptake of evidence. However, it is not entirely clear from a practical perspective how facilitation occurs to help move research evidence into nursing practice. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, also known as the 'Partnership,' is a Pan-Canadian initiative supporting knowledge translation activity for improved care through guideline use. In this case-series study, five self-identified groups volunteered to use a systematic methodology to adapt existing clinical practice guidelines for Canadian use. With 'Partnership' support, local and external facilitators provided assistance for groups to begin the process by adapting the guidelines and planning for implementation. METHODS: To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of facilitation, we conducted a mixed-methods study. Specifically, we examined the role and skills of individuals actively engaged in facilitation as well as the actual facilitation activities occurring within the 'Partnership.' The study was driven by and builds upon a focused literature review published in 2010 that examined facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing. An audit tool outlining 46 discrete facilitation activities based on results of this review was used to examine the facilitation noted in the documents (emails, meeting minutes, field notes) of three nursing-related cases participating in the 'Partnership' case-series study. To further examine the concept, six facilitators were interviewed about their practical experiences. The case-audit data were analyzed through a simple content analysis and triangulated with participant responses from the focus group interview to understand what occurred as these cases undertook guideline adaptation. RESULTS: The analysis of the three cases revealed that almost all of the 46 discrete, practical facilitation activities from the literature were evidenced. Additionally, case documents exposed five other facilitation-related activities, and a combination of external and local facilitation was apparent. Individuals who were involved in the case or group adapting the guideline(s) also performed facilitation activities, both formally and informally, in conjunction with or in addition to appointed external and local facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Facilitation of evidence-based practice is a multifaceted process and a team effort. Communication and relationship-building are key components. The practical aspects of facilitation explicated in this study validate what has been previously noted in the literature and expand what is known about facilitation process and activity.