Surgical nurses' perceptions and experiences of a medications and oral restrictions policy change: A focus group study.
focus groups
medication
medication management
nurse
policy
surgical nursing
Journal
Journal of clinical nursing
ISSN: 1365-2702
Titre abrégé: J Clin Nurs
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9207302
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
14
10
2018
revised:
10
02
2019
accepted:
14
04
2019
pubmed:
24
4
2019
medline:
7
11
2019
entrez:
24
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To explore the perceptions and experiences of surgical nurses before and after introducing the Medications and Oral Restrictions Policy (the Policy). The Policy was developed following extensive consultation, and evidence-based strategies were considered for its implementation. However, it is possible uptake did not meet expectations. Focus group interviews. Three focus groups were conducted in November 2015 around 'what worked, what didn't and why, before and after hospital-wide implementation of the Policy.' Data were coded and analysed using an inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach. The COREQ checklist guided reporting. The three groups consisted of 16, 14 and six surgical nurses. Before the Policy, there was confusion, lack of clarity and guidance, and lack of experience and confidence in managing medications when patients had oral restrictions. After the Policy rollout, there was a sense of 'knowing what to do' because of improved clarity and decision support; but there were also problems with: not everyone knowing about the policy, particularly due to staff movement and turnover; and, individual interpretation of the policy including use of its signs outside of context, and decision-making processes. Exploration of nurses' perceptions of a medication-related policy change found that while the Policy provided clarity and decision support for some, it made little difference for others. Limited reach of the policy was an issue despite an effort to address this at the outset, as well as variations in interpretation of the policy and subsequent decision-making. How individuals interpret information and their understanding of the context behind the policy or guideline may affect implementation and should be considered alongside other barriers when implementing medication-related initiatives. Furthermore, implementation strategies that are independent of ongoing resources and/or key champions to sustain should be prioritised for all initiatives.
Sections du résumé
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To explore the perceptions and experiences of surgical nurses before and after introducing the Medications and Oral Restrictions Policy (the Policy).
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Policy was developed following extensive consultation, and evidence-based strategies were considered for its implementation. However, it is possible uptake did not meet expectations.
DESIGN
METHODS
Focus group interviews.
METHODS
METHODS
Three focus groups were conducted in November 2015 around 'what worked, what didn't and why, before and after hospital-wide implementation of the Policy.' Data were coded and analysed using an inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach. The COREQ checklist guided reporting.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The three groups consisted of 16, 14 and six surgical nurses. Before the Policy, there was confusion, lack of clarity and guidance, and lack of experience and confidence in managing medications when patients had oral restrictions. After the Policy rollout, there was a sense of 'knowing what to do' because of improved clarity and decision support; but there were also problems with: not everyone knowing about the policy, particularly due to staff movement and turnover; and, individual interpretation of the policy including use of its signs outside of context, and decision-making processes.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Exploration of nurses' perceptions of a medication-related policy change found that while the Policy provided clarity and decision support for some, it made little difference for others. Limited reach of the policy was an issue despite an effort to address this at the outset, as well as variations in interpretation of the policy and subsequent decision-making.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
CONCLUSIONS
How individuals interpret information and their understanding of the context behind the policy or guideline may affect implementation and should be considered alongside other barriers when implementing medication-related initiatives. Furthermore, implementation strategies that are independent of ongoing resources and/or key champions to sustain should be prioritised for all initiatives.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3242-3251Informations de copyright
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Australian Commission and on Safety and Quality in Health Care (2008). Windows into safety and quality in health care 2008. Sydney, Australia: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.
Babl, F., Priestley, S., Krieser, D., Miller, J., Tully, M., Spicer, M., … Dilla, N. (2006). Development and implementation of an education and credentialing programme to provide safe paediatric procedural sedation in emergency departments. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 18(5-6), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00904.x
Bjørk, I. T., & Hamilton, G. A. (2011). Clinical decision making of nurses working in hospital settings. Nursing Research and Practice, 2011, 8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/524918
Brand, C., Landgren, F., Hutchinson, A., Jones, C., MacGregor, L., & Campbell, D. (2005). Clinical practice guidelines: Barriers to durability after effective early implementation. Internal Medicine Journal, 35(3), 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2004.00763.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (Vol. 2, pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 9, 26152. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.26152
Bridges, D. R., Davidson, R. A., Odegard, P. S., Maki, I. V., & Tomkowiak, J. (2011). Interprofessional collaboration: Three best practice models of interprofessional education. Medical Education Online, 16, https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035
Brown, J., Lewis, L., Ellis, K., Stewart, M., Freeman, T. R., & Kasperski, M. J. (2011). Conflict on interprofessional primary health care teams - Can it be resolved? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25(1), 4-10. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.497750
Caldwell, K., & Atwal, A. (2003). The problems of interprofessional healthcare practice in hospitals. British Journal of Nursing, 12(20), 1212-1218. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2003.12.20.11844
Cane, J., O'Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science, 7, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-37
Croskerry, P. (2013). From mindless to mindful practice-Cognitive bias and clinical decision making. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(26), 2445-2448. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1303712
Curran, J. A., Brehaut, J., Patey, A. M., Osmond, M., Stiell, I., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2013). Understanding the Canadian adult CT head rule trial: Use of the theoretical domains framework for process evaluation. Implementation Science, 8, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-25
Gladstone, N. (2012). Comparative theories in clinical decision making and their application to practice: A reflective case study. British Journal of Anaesthetic and Recovery Nursing, 13(3-4), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742645612000435
Grol, R., Wensing, M., & Eccles, M. (2004). Improving patient care. The implementation of change in clinical practice. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & McKenna, K. (2016). How many focus groups are enough? Building an Evidence base for nonprobability sample sizes. Field Methods, 29(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X16639015
Hepp, S. L., Suter, E., Jackson, K., Deutschlander, S., Makwarimba, E., Jennings, J., & Birmingham, L. (2015). Using an interprofessional competency framework to examine collaborative practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(2), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.955910
Jamieson, L., & Williams, L. M. (2003). Focus group methodology: Explanatory notes for the novice nurse researcher. Contemporary Nurse, 14(3), 271-280. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.14.3.271
Jayasekara, R. (2012). Focus groups in nursing research: Methodological perspectives. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 411-416.
Joffe, H. (2012). Thematic analysis. In D. Harper, & A. Thompson (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy (pp. 209-223). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Khalili, H., Hall, J., & DeLuca, S. (2014). Historical analysis of professionalism in western societies: Implications for interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(2), 92-97.
King, J. C., Hibbs, R., Saville, C. W. N., & Swales, M. A. (2018). The survivability of dialectical behaviour therapy programmes: A mixed methods analysis of barriers and facilitators to implementation within UK healthcare settings. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 302. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1876-7
Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M. S. (2000). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9728.html
Leever, A. M., Hulst, M. V. D., Berendsen, A. J., Boendemaker, P. M., Roodenburg, J. L. N., & Pols, J. (2010). Conflicts and conflict management in the collaboration between nurses and physicians - A qualitative study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(6), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820903550762
Lloyd-Smith, E., Curtin, J., Gilbart, W., & Romney, M. G. (2014). Qualitative evaluation and economic estimates of an infection control champions program. American Journal of Infection Control, 42(12), 1303-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.08.017
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Lawton, R., Parker, D., & Walker, A. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research: Planning and research design for focus groups. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/sage-research-methods
Nibbelink, C. W., & Brewer, B. B. (2018). Decision-making in nursing practice: An integrative literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(5-6), 917-928. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14151
Nyumba, O. T., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Patton, C. (2014). Conflict in health care: A literature review. The Internet Journal of Healthcare Administration, 9(1).
Rabiee, F. (2007). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655-660. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399
Schneider, P. (2002). Applying human factors in improving medication-use safety. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 59(12), 1155-1159.
Tavender, E. J., Bosch, M., Gruen, R. L., Green, S. E., Knott, J., Francis, J. J., … O'Connor, D. A. (2014). Understanding practice: The factors that influence management of mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department-a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implementation Science, 9, 8-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-8
Thompson, C., & Stapley, S. (2011). Do educational interventions improve nurses' clinical decision making and judgement? A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(7), 881-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.12.005
Thomson, K., Outram, S., Gilligan, C., & Levett-Jones, T. (2015). Interprofessional experiences of recent healthcare graduates: A social psychology perspective on the barriers to effective communication, teamwork, and patient-centred care. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(6), 634-640. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1040873
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Wong, L. P. (2008). Focus group discussion: A tool for health and medical research. Singapore Medical Journal, 49(3), 256-260; quiz 261.
World Health Organisation (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70185/1/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf
Zwarenstein, M., & Reeves, S. (2002). Working together but apart: Barriers and routes to nurse-physician collaboration. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 28(5), 242-247, 209.