Barbara Davies

The Role of Nursing Best Practice Champions in Diffusing Practice Guidelines: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND While the importance of nursing best practice champions has been widely promoted in the diffusion of evidence-based practice, there has been little research about their role. By learning more about what champions do in guideline diffusion, the nursing profession can more proactively manage and facilitate the role of champions while capitalizing on their potential to be effective leaders of the health care system. AIM To determine how nursing best practice champions influence the diffusion of Best Practice Guideline recommendations. METHODS A mixed method sequential triangulation design was used involving two phases: (1) key informant interviews with 23 champions between February and July 2006 and (2) a survey of champions (N= 191) and administrators (N= 41) from September to October 2007. Qualitative findings informed the development of surveys and were used in interpreting quantitative information collected in phase 2. RESULTS Most interview and survey participants were female, employed full-time, and had worked in practice for over 20 years. Qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that champions influence the use of Best Practice Guideline recommendations most readily through: (1) dissemination of information about clinical practice guidelines, specifically through education and mentoring; (2) being persuasive practice leaders at interdisciplinary committees; and (3) tailoring the guideline implementation strategies to the organizational context. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Our research suggests that nursing best practice champions have a multidimensional role that is well suited to navigating the complexities of a dynamic health system to create positive change. Understanding of this role can help service organizations and the nursing profession more fully capitalize on the potential of champions to influence and implement evidence-based practices to advance positive patient, organizational, and system outcomes.

Multidisciplinary Collaborative Maternity Care in Canada: Easier Said Than Done

OBJECTIVE To describe care provider attitudes towards multidisciplinary collaborative maternity care in Canada and the factors influencing such care from the perspective of members of national professional associations of care providers. METHODS A qualitative descriptive approach was used. Leaders of national associations nominated key members, who were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews. RESULTS Twenty-five participants from six national care provider associations (family physicians, obstetricians, registered midwives, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, and rural physicians) were interviewed. Participants described at least one of two main benefits of collaborative maternity care: a partial solution to the human resources shortage in maternity care, and improved maternity care for women. Despite their belief that collaboration is needed, participants expressed concern about the effects of collaboration on their practice. In particular, some participants were concerned about how collaborative models could support woman-centred care or respond to local community needs and promote continuity of care. Significant barriers to collaboration include structural factors (fee structure, liability issues) and interdisciplinary rivalry between groups of providers (turf protection, lack of mutual respect). Strategies to promote collaboration that were supported by the participants include strong national leadership and interdisciplinary education. CONCLUSION Representatives of professional associations of care providers believe that multidisciplinary collaborative maternity care is needed to sustain the availability of care providers and to improve access and womens choices for maternity care in Canada. However, they perceive that strong leadership and education are needed to address significant structural and relational barriers to collaborative practice.

Multicentre prospective validation of use of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by triage nurses in the emergency department

Objectives: The Canadian C-Spine Rule for imaging of the cervical spine was developed for use by physicians. We believe that nurses in the emergency department could use this rule to clinically clear the cervical spine. We prospectively evaluated the accuracy, reliability and acceptability of the Canadian C-Spine Rule when used by nurses. Methods: We conducted this three-year prospective cohort study in six Canadian emergency departments. The study involved adult trauma patients who were alert and whose condition was stable. We provided two hours of training to 191 triage nurses. The nurses then assessed patients using the Canadian C-Spine Rule, including determination of neck tenderness and range of motion, reapplied immobilization and completed a data form. Results: Of the 3633 study patients, 42 (1.2%) had clinically important injuries of the cervical spine. The kappa value for interobserver assessments of 498 patients with the Canadian C-Spine Rule was 0.78. We calculated sensitivity of 100.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.0%–100.0%) and specificity of 43.4% (95% CI 42.0%–45.0%) for the Canadian C-Spine Rule as interpreted by the investigators. The nurses classified patients with a sensitivity of 90.2% (95% CI 76.0%–95.0%) and a specificity of 43.9% (95% CI 42.0%–46.0%). Early in the study, nurses failed to identify four cases of injury, despite the presence of clear high-risk factors. None of these patients suffered sequelae, and after retraining there were no further missed cases. We estimated that for 40.7% of patients, the cervical spine could be cleared clinically by nurses. Nurses reported discomfort in applying the Canadian C-Spine Rule in only 4.8% of cases. Conclusion: Use of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by nurses was accurate, reliable and clinically acceptable. Widespread implementation by nurses throughout Canada and elsewhere would diminish patient discomfort and improve patient flow in overcrowded emergency departments.

Evaluation of a collaborative chronic care approach to improve outcomes in kidney transplant recipients.

Several studies found that renal transplant recipients with chronic kidney disease have untreated complications and do not attain recommended clinical targets. Using a before/after design with propensity score–matched controls, we evaluated whether an advanced practice nurse‐led interprofessional collaborative chronic care approach could improve clinical outcomes for CKD transplant patients compared with a traditional physician‐led model. The intervention included strategies for disease self‐management, shared decision making, and healthcare system reorganization. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients attaining at least seven of nine targets as per published guidelines. A greater proportion of intervention patients achieved the outcome (68% vs. 10%; p = 0.0001) and had discussions about end‐stage treatment options (88% vs. 13%; p = 0.0001) compared with controls. The intervention patients had significantly fewer emergency room visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.29–0.91; p = 0.02) and hospital admissions (IRR 0.34; 95% CI 0.16–0.68; p = 0.001) compared with the control patients. There were no significant differences found between the groups in systolic/diastolic blood pressure, carbon dioxide, hemoglobin, or phosphate parameters. An advanced practice nurse‐led approach, based on the chronic care model, has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for renal transplant recipients and needs to be tested in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Achieving a climate for patient safety by focusing on relationships

OBJECTIVE Despite many initiatives, advances in patient safety remain uneven in part because poor relationships among health professionals have not been addressed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether relationships between health professionals contributed to a patient safety climate, after implementation of an intervention to improve inter-professional collaboration. DESIGN/SETTING This was a secondary analysis of data collected to evaluate the Interprofessional Model of Patient Care (IPMPC) at The Ottawa Hospital in Ontario, Canada, which consists of five sites. A series of generalized estimating equation models were generated, accounting for the clustering of responses by site. PARTICIPANTS Thirteen health professionals including physicians, nurses, physiotherapists and others (n = 1896) completed anonymous surveys about 1 year after the IPMPC was introduced. INTERVENTION The IPMPC was implemented to improve interdisciplinary collaboration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Reliable instruments were used to measure collaboration, respect, inter-professional conflict and patient safety climate. RESULTS Collaboration (β = 0.13; P = 0.002) and respect (β = 1.07; P = 0.03) were significant independent predictors of patient safety climate. Conflict was an independent and significant inverse predictor of patient safety climate (β = -0.29; P = 0.03), but did not moderate linkages between collaboration and patient safety climate or between respect and patient safety climate. CONCLUSIONS Through the IPMPC, all health professionals learned how to collaborate and build a patient safety climate, even in the presence of inter-professional conflict. Efforts by others to foster better work relationships may yield similar improvements in patient safety climate.

Measuring the Effectiveness of Mentoring as a Knowledge Translation Intervention for Implementing Empirical Evidence: A Systematic Review

Background Mentoring as a knowledge translation (KT) intervention uses social influence among healthcare professionals to increase use of evidence in clinical practice. Aim To determine the effectiveness of mentoring as a KT intervention designed to increase healthcare professionals’ use of evidence in clinical practice. Methods A systematic review was conducted using electronic databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and hand searching. Eligible studies evaluated mentoring of healthcare professionals responsible for patient care to enhance the uptake of evidence into practice. Mentoring is defined as (a) a mentor more experienced than mentee; (b) individualized support based on mentees needs; and (c) involved in an interpersonal relationship as indicated by mutual benefit, engagement, and commitment. Two reviewers independently screened citations for eligibility, extracted data, and appraised quality of studies. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results Of 10,669 citations from 1988 to 2012, 10 studies were eligible. Mentoring as a KT intervention was evaluated in Canada, USA, and Australia. Exposure to mentoring compared to no mentoring improved some behavioral outcomes (one study). Compared to controls or other multifaceted interventions, multifaceted interventions with mentoring improved practitioners’ knowledge (four of five studies), beliefs (four of six studies), and impact on organizational outcomes (three of four studies). There were mixed findings for changes in professionals’ behaviors and impact on practitioners’ and patients’ outcomes: some outcomes improved, while others showed no difference. Linking Evidence to Action Only one study evaluated the effectiveness of mentoring alone as a KT intervention and showed improvement in some behavioral outcomes. The other nine studies that evaluated the effectiveness of mentoring as part of a multifaceted intervention showed mixed findings, making it difficult to determine the added effect of mentoring. Further research is needed to identify effective mentoring as a KT intervention.

Spreading and sustaining best practices for home care of older adults: a grounded theory study

BackgroundImproving health care quality requires effective and timely spread of innovations that support evidence-based practices. However, there is limited rigorous research on the process of spread, factors influencing spread, and models of spread. It is particularly important to study spread within the home care sector given the aging of the population, expansion of home care services internationally, the high proportion of older adult users of home care services, and the vulnerability of this group who are frail and live with multiple chronic conditions. The purpose of this study was to understand how best practices related to older adults are spread within home care organizations.MethodsFour home care organizations in Ontario, Canada that had implemented best practices related to older adults (falls prevention, pain management, management of venous leg ulcers) participated. Using a qualitative grounded theory design, interviews were conducted with frontline providers, managers, and directors at baseline (n =44) and 1 yearar later (n =40). Open, axial, and selective coding and constant comparison analysis were used.ResultsA model of the process of spread of best practices within home care organizations was developed. The phases of spread included (1) committing to change, (2) implementing on a small scale, (3) adapting locally, (4) spreading internally to multiple users and sites, and (5) disseminating externally. Factors that facilitated progression through these phases were (1) leading with passion and commitment, (2) sustaining strategies, and (3) seeing the benefits. Project leads, champions, managers, and steering committees played vital roles in leading the spread process. Strategies such as educating/coaching and evaluating and feedback were key to sustaining the change. Spread occurred within the home care context of high staff and manager turnover and time and resource constraints.ConclusionsSpread of best practices is optimized through the application of the phases of spread, allocation of resources to support spread, and implementing strategies for ongoing sustainability that address potential barriers. Further research will help to understand how best practices are spread externally to other organizations.

The Ottawa Hospital’s Clinical Practice Guidelinefor the Second Stage of Labour

The management of the second stage of labour remains controversial, and there are very few comprehensive evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to assist care providers. We describe an approach to developing a local clinical practice guideline that included extensive review of the literature; use of a guideline appraisal instrument to assess methodological rigour, content, clarity and applicability; use of a recommendation matrix; drafting a local guideline; obtaining formal feedback; making revisions; and designing an implementation and evaluation plan. Recommendations from this guideline include timelines for the total length of second stage, waiting time, and pushing time. Positioning of the woman, use of oxytocin, and fetal assessment are also discussed. This guideline is not intended to be used for women with multiple gestation and women attempting vaginal birth after Caesarean (VBAC) or in clinical situations where little evidence on best practice exists and management is individualized. We advocate an approach to the second stage of labour that enhances patient safety through team planning, communication, and documentation.

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the phlebitis and infiltration scales for the assessment of complications of peripheral vascular access devices.

To prevent complications from peripheral vascular access device (PVAD) therapy, the Infusion Nurses Society (INS) developed 2 scales to measure the extent and severity of phlebitis and infiltration in PVADs. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of these scales to validate them with respect to their interrater reliability, concurrent validity, feasibility, and acceptability. A total of 182 patients at 2 sites were enrolled, and 416 observations of PVAD sites were made. Two nurses independently rated each PVAD site for the presence or absence of phlebitis and/or infiltration by using the INS scales. The interrater reliability was calculated, as was the agreement of the observed versus charted incidence of phlebitis and infiltration (concurrent validity) and the ease of use of the scales (feasibility, acceptability). Interrater reliability for both the Phlebitis and Infiltration scales and concurrent validity were found to be statistically significant (P < .05). The study nurses reported the scales to be easy to use, taking an average of 1.3 minutes to complete both. The importance of valid measures for use in research cannot be underestimated. The INS Phlebitis and Infiltration scales have been shown to be easy to use, valid, and reliable scales.

Hiding in plain sight: Communication theory in implementation science

BackgroundPoor communication among healthcare professionals is a pressing problem, contributing to widespread barriers to patient safety. The word “communication” means to share or make common. In the literature, two communication paradigms dominate: (1) communication as a transactional process responsible for information exchange, and (2) communication as a transformational process responsible for causing change. Implementation science has focused on information exchange attributes while largely ignoring transformational attributes of communication. In this paper, we debate the merits of encompassing both paradigms.DiscussionWe conducted a two-staged literature review searching for the concept of communication in implementation science to understand how communication is conceptualized. Twenty-seven theories, models, or frameworks were identified; only Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory provides a definition of communication and includes both communication paradigms. Most models (notable exceptions include Diffusion of Innovations, The Ottawa Model of Research Use, and Normalization Process Theory) describe communication as a transactional process. But thinking of communication solely as information transfer or exchange misrepresents reality. We recommend that implementation science theories (1) propose and test the concept of shared understanding when describing communication, (2) acknowledge that communication is multi-layered, identify at least a few layers, and posit how identified layers might affect the development of shared understanding, (3) acknowledge that communication occurs in a social context, providing a frame of reference for both individuals and groups, (4) acknowledge the unpredictability of communication (and healthcare processes in general), and (5) engage with and draw on work done by communication theorists.SummaryImplementation science literature has conceptualized communication as a transactional process (when communication has been mentioned at all), thereby ignoring a key contributor to implementation intervention success. When conceptualized as a transformational process, the focus of communication moves to shared understanding and is grounded in human interactions and the way we go about constructing knowledge. Instead of hiding in plain sight, we suggest explicitly acknowledging the role that communication plays in our implementation efforts. By using both paradigms, we can investigate when communication facilitates implementation, when it does not, and how to improve it so that our implementation and clinical interventions are embraced by clinicians and patients alike.