Theo van Achterberg

Nursing Implementation Science: How Evidence-Based Nursing Requires Evidence-Based Implementation

PURPOSE Evidence is not always used in practice, and many examples of problematic implementation of research into practice exist. The aim of this paper is to provide an introduction and overview of current developments in implementation science and to apply these to nursing. METHODS We discuss a framework for implementation, describe common implementation determinants, and provide a rationale for choosing implementation strategies using the available evidence from nursing research and general health services research. FINDINGS Common determinants for implementation relate to knowledge, cognitions, attitudes, routines, social influence, organization, and resources. Determinants are often specific for innovation, context, and target groups. Strategies focused on individual professionals and voluntary approaches currently dominate implementation research. Strategies such as reminders, decision support, use of information and communication technology (ICT), rewards, and combined strategies are often effective in encouraging implementation of evidence and innovations. Linking determinants to theory-based strategies, however, can facilitate optimal implementation plans. CONCLUSIONS An analytical, deliberate process of clarifying implementation determinants and choosing strategies is needed to improve situations where suboptimal care exists. Use of theory and evidence from implementation science can facilitate evidence-based implementation. More research, especially in the area of nursing, is needed. This research should be focused on the effectiveness of innovative strategies directed to patients, individual professionals, teams, healthcare organizations, and finances. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Implementation of evidence-based interventions is crucial to professional nursing and the quality and safety of patient care.

A systematic review of hand hygiene improvement strategies: a behavioural approach.

BackgroundMany strategies have been designed and evaluated to address the problem of low hand hygiene (HH) compliance. Which of these strategies are most effective and how they work is still unclear. Here we describe frequently used improvement strategies and related determinants of behaviour change that prompt good HH behaviour to provide a better overview of the choice and content of such strategies.MethodsSystematic searches of experimental and quasi-experimental research on HH improvement strategies were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to November 2009. First, we extracted the study characteristics using the EPOC Data Collection Checklist, including study objectives, setting, study design, target population, outcome measures, description of the intervention, analysis, and results. Second, we used the Taxonomy of Behavioural Change Techniques to identify targeted determinants.ResultsWe reviewed 41 studies. The most frequently addressed determinants were knowledge, awareness, action control, and facilitation of behaviour. Fewer studies addressed social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, and intention. Thirteen studies used a controlled design to measure the effects of HH improvement strategies on HH behaviour. The effectiveness of the strategies varied substantially, but most controlled studies showed positive results. The median effect size of these strategies increased from 17.6 (relative difference) addressing one determinant to 49.5 for the studies that addressed five determinants.ConclusionsBy focussing on determinants of behaviour change, we found hidden and valuable components in HH improvement strategies. Addressing only determinants such as knowledge, awareness, action control, and facilitation is not enough to change HH behaviour. Addressing combinations of different determinants showed better results. This indicates that we should be more creative in the application of alternative improvement activities addressing determinants such as social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, or intention.

How to promote healthy behaviours in patients? An overview of evidence for behaviour change techniques

To identify the evidence for the effectiveness of behaviour change techniques, when used by health-care professionals, in accomplishing health-promoting behaviours in patients. Reviews were used to extract data at a study level. A taxonomy was used to classify behaviour change techniques. We included 23 systematic reviews: 14 on smoking cessation, 6 on physical exercise, and 2 on healthy diets and 1 on both exercise and diets. None of the behaviour change techniques demonstrated clear effects in a convincing majority of the studies in which they were evaluated. Techniques targeting knowledge (n = 210 studies) and facilitation of behaviour (n = 172) were evaluated most frequently. However, self-monitoring of behaviour (positive effects in 56% of the studies), risk communication (52%) and use of social support (50%) were most often identified as effective. Insufficient insight into appropriateness of technique choice and quality of technique delivery hinder precise conclusions. Relatively, however, self-monitoring of behaviour, risk communication and use of social support are most effective. Health professionals should avoid thinking that providing knowledge, materials and professional support will be sufficient for patients to accomplish change and consider alternative strategies which may be more effective.

Haloperidol prophylaxis in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium

IntroductionDelirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We implemented a delirium prevention policy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a high risk of developing delirium, and evaluated if our policy resulted in quality improvement of relevant delirium outcome measures.MethodsThis study was a before/after evaluation of a delirium prevention project using prophylactic treatment with haloperidol. Patients with a predicted risk for delirium of ≥ 50%, or with a history of alcohol abuse or dementia, were identified. According to the prevention protocol these patients received haloperidol 1 mg/8 h. Evaluation was primarily focused on delirium incidence, delirium free days without coma and 28-day mortality. Results of prophylactic treatment were compared with a historical control group and a contemporary group that did not receive haloperidol prophylaxis mainly due to non-compliance to the protocol mostly during the implementation phase.ResultsIn 12 months, 177 patients received haloperidol prophylaxis. Except for sepsis, patient characteristics were comparable between the prevention and the historical (n = 299) groups. Predicted chance to develop delirium was 75 ± 19% and 73 ± 22%, respectively. Haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in a lower delirium incidence (65% vs. 75%, P = 0.01), and more delirium-free-days (median 20 days (IQR 8 to 27) vs. median 13 days (3 to 27), P = 0.003) in the intervention group compared to the control group. Cox-regression analysis adjusted for sepsis showed a hazard rate of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.98) for 28-day mortality. Beneficial effects of haloperidol appeared most pronounced in the patients with the highest risk for delirium. Furthermore, haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in less ICU re-admissions (11% vs. 18%, P = 0.03) and unplanned removal of tubes/lines (12% vs. 19%, P = 0.02). Haloperidol was stopped in 12 patients because of QTc-time prolongation (n = 9), renal failure (n = 1) or suspected neurological side-effects (n = 2). No other side-effects were reported. Patients who were not treated during the intervention period (n = 59) showed similar results compared to the untreated historical control group.ConclusionsOur evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. These results warrant confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.Trial registrationclinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01187667.

Incidence and short-term consequences of delirium in critically ill patients: A prospective observational cohort study §

BACKGROUND Delirium is a serious and frequent psycho-organic disorder in critically ill patients. Reported incidence rates vary to a large extent and there is a paucity of data concerning delirium incidence rates for the different subgroups of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and their short-term health consequences. OBJECTIVES To determine the overall incidence and duration of delirium, per delirium subtype and per ICU admission diagnosis. Furthermore, we determined the short-term consequences of delirium. DESIGN Prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING All adult consecutive patients admitted in one year to the ICU of a university medical centre. METHODS Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU three times a day. Delirium was divided in three subtypes: hyperactive, hypoactive and mixed subtype. As measures for short-term consequences we registered duration of mechanical ventilation, re-intubations, incidence of unplanned removal of tubes, length of (ICU) stay and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS 1613 patients were included of which 411 (26%) developed delirium. The incidence rate in the neurosurgical (10%) and cardiac surgery group (12%) was the lowest, incidence was intermediate in medical patients (40%), while patients with a neurological diagnosis had the highest incidence (64%). The mixed subtype occurred the most (53%), while the hyperactive subtype the least (10%). The median delirium duration was two days [IQR 1-7], but significantly longer (P<0.0001) for the mixed subtype. More delirious patients were mechanically ventilated and for a longer period of time, were more likely to remove their tube and catheters, stayed in the ICU and hospital for a longer time, and had a six times higher chance of dying compared to non-delirium ICU patients, even after adjusting for their severity of illness score. Delirium was associated with an extended duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU and in-hospital, as well as with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS The delirium incidence in a mixed ICU population is high and differs importantly between ICU admission diagnoses and the subtypes of delirium. Patients with delirium had a significantly higher incidence of short-term health problems, independent from their severity of illness and this was most pronounced in the mixed subtype of delirium. Delirium is significantly associated with worse short-term outcome.

Guideline implementation results in a decrease of pressure ulcer incidence in critically ill patients.

Objective:To describe the short-term and long-term effects of a hospital-wide pressure ulcer prevention and treatment guideline on both the incidence and the time to the onset of pressure ulcers in critically ill patients. Design:Prospective cohort study. Setting:Adult intensive care department of a university medical center. Patients:Critically ill patients (n = 399). Interventions:A guideline for pressure ulcer care was implemented on all intensive care units. The attention of nurses for timely transfer to a specific pressure-reducing device was an important part of this guideline. Measurements and Main Results:Patient characteristics, demographics, pressure ulcer risk profile at admission, daily pressure ulcer grading, and type of mattress were determined to describe the short-term and long-term effects 3 and 12 months after the implementation. The incidence density of pressure ulcers grade II–IV decreased from 54 per 1000 patient days at baseline to 32 per 1000 days (p = .001) 12 months after the implementation. The median pressure ulcer-free time increased from 12 days to 19 days (hazard rate ratio, 0.58; p = .02). After adjustment for differences in risk factors in a Cox proportional hazard model, the number of preventive transfers to special mattresses was the strongest indicator for the decreased risk of pressure ulcers (hazard rate ratio, 0.22; p < .001). The number needed to treat to prevent one pressure ulcer during the first 9 days was six. Conclusions:The implementation of a guideline for pressure ulcer care resulted in a significant and sustained decrease in the development of grade II–IV pressure ulcers in critically ill patients. Timely transfer to a specific mattress (i.e., transfer before the occurrence of a pressure ulcer) was the main indicator for a decrease in pressure ulcer development.

Implementation of a delirium assessment tool in the ICU can influence haloperidol use

IntroductionIn critically ill patients, delirium is a serious and frequent disorder that is associated with a prolonged intensive care and hospital stay and an increased morbidity and mortality. Without the use of a delirium screening instrument, delirium is often missed by ICU nurses and physicians. The effects of implementation of a screening method on haloperidol use is not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the confusion assessment method-ICU (CAM-ICU) and the effect of its use on frequency and duration of haloperidol use.MethodsWe used a tailored implementation strategy focused on potential barriers. We measured CAM-ICU compliance, interrater reliability, and delirium knowledge, and compared the haloperidol use, as a proxy for delirium incidence, before and after the implementation of the CAM-ICU.ResultsCompliance and delirium knowledge increased from 77% to 92% and from 6.2 to 7.4, respectively (both, P < 0.0001). The interrater reliability increased from 0.78 to 0.89. More patients were treated with haloperidol (9.9% to 14.8%, P < 0.001), however with a lower dose (18 to 6 mg, P = 0.01) and for a shorter time period (5 [IQR:2–9] to 3 [IQR:1–5] days, P = 0.02).ConclusionsWith a tailored implementation strategy, a delirium assessment tool was successfully introduced in the ICU with the main goals achieved within four months. Early detection of delirium in critically ill patients increases the number of patients that receive treatment with haloperidol, however with a lower dose and for a shorter time period.

Facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care.

INTRODUCTION The aim of the study is to give insight into facilitators and barriers in pain management in trauma patients in the chain of emergency care in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS A qualitative approach was adopted with the use of the implementation Model of Change of Clinical Practice. The chain of emergency care concerned prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Emergency Departments (EDs). We included two EMS ambulance services and three EDs and conducted five focus groups and 10 individual interviews. Stakeholders and managers of organisations were interviewed individually. Focus group participants were selected based on availability and general characteristics. Transcripts of the audio recordings and field notes were analysed in consecutive steps, based on thematic content analysis. Each step was independently performed by the researchers, and was discussed afterwards. We analysed differences and similarities supported by software for qualitative analysis MaxQDA. RESULTS This study identified five concepts as facilitators and barriers in pain management for trauma patients in the chain of emergency care. We described the concepts of knowledge, attitude, professional communication, organisational aspects and patient input, illustrated with quotes from the interviews and focus group sessions. Furthermore, we identified whether the themes occurred in the chain of care. Knowledge deficits, attitude problems and patient input were similar for the EMS and ED settings, despite the different positions, backgrounds and educational levels of respondents. In the chain of care a lack of professional communication and organisational feedback occurred as new themes, and were specifically related to the organisational structure of the prehospital EMS and EDs. CONCLUSION Identified organisational aspects stressed the importance of organisational embedding of improvement of pain management. However, change of clinical practice requires a comprehensive approach focused at all five concepts. We think a shift in attitudes is needed, together with constant surveillance and feedback to emergency care providers. Implementation efforts need to be aimed at the identified barriers and facilitators, tailored to the chain of emergency care and the multi-professional group of emergency care providers.

Barriers, facilitators and attitudes influencing health promotion activities in general practice: an explorative pilot study.

BackgroundThe number of chronically ill patients increases every year. This is partly due to an unhealthy lifestyle. However, the frequency and quality of (evidence-based) health promotion activities conducted by Dutch general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) are limited. The aim of this pilot study was to explore which lifestyle interventions Dutch GPs and PNs carry out in primary care, which barriers and facilitators can be identified and what main topics are with respect to attitudes towards health promoting activities. These topic areas will be identified for a future, larger scale study.MethodThis qualitative study consisted of 25 semi-structured interviews with sixteen GPs and nine PNs. ATLAS.ti was used to analyse the transcripts of the interviews.ResultsAll GPs and PNs said they discuss lifestyle with their patients. Next to this, GPs and PNs counsel patients, and/or refer them to other disciplines. Only few said they refer patients to specific lifestyle programs or interventions in their own practice or in the neighbourhood. Several barriers and facilitators were identified. The main topics as barriers are: a lack of patients’ motivation to make lifestyle changes, insufficient reimbursement, a lack of proven effectiveness of interventions and a lack of overview of health promoting programs in their neighbourhood. The most cited facilitators are availability of a PN, collaboration with other disciplines and availability of interventions in their own practice. With respect to attitudes, six different types of GPs were identified reflecting the main topics that relate to attitudes, varying from ‘ignorer’ to ‘nurturer’. The topics relating to PNs attitudes towards health promotion activities, were almost unanimously positive.ConclusionGPs and PNs all say they discuss lifestyle issues with their patients, but the health promotion activities that are organized in their practice vary. Main topics that hinder or facilitate implementation are identified, including those that relate to attitudes of GPs and PNs.

The Lively Legs self-management programme increased physical activity and reduced wound days in leg ulcer patients: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE Investigating the effectiveness of the Lively Legs program for promoting adherence with ambulant compression therapy and physical exercise as well as effects on leg ulcer recurrence. DESIGN A randomized controlled trial. SETTING Eleven outpatient clinics for dermatology in the Netherlands participated in the study. PATIENTS 184 patients attending the outpatient clinic with leg ulcers based dominantly on a venous aetiology. Randomization was stratified by centre, age, sex and aetiology (purely venous or mixed). INTERVENTION The intervention group received additionally to usual care, lifestyle counselling according to the Lively Legs program, the control group received care as usual. Patient behaviour on physical activity (IPAQ), adherence to compression therapy and wound status were assessed every 6 months during a follow-up period of 18 months. Data analysis was based on the intention to treat principle, using a generalized linear model with additive link function and Bernouilli distributions. Effects on recurrence were analyzed after the first ulcer had healed using proportional hazard regression. RESULTS The results showed an increase in adherence with compression therapy in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups. The intervention group performed significantly better on conducting leg exercises (p<0.01) and 10 min walks at five days a week (p<0.01). There was no difference on reaching 30 min of walking on 5 days a week. The intervention group had less wound days (p<0.01), time till recurrence did not differ significantly (p=0.07). CONCLUSION The Lively Legs program effectively increased the use of leg exercises and walking behaviour, and decreased wound time, however it did not significantly enhance use of compression stockings. Non significant effects regarding secondary outcomes may relate to the frailty of the sample.