Effects of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing low-value nursing procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
De-implementation
Deprescription
Health services Misuse
Inappropriate prescribing
Low-value care
Nursing
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 05 2020
25 05 2020
Historique:
received:
17
03
2020
accepted:
29
04
2020
entrez:
27
5
2020
pubmed:
27
5
2020
medline:
25
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures. PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care' (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20). The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used. The review is registered in Prospero (CRD42018105100).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care' (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20).
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The review is registered in Prospero (CRD42018105100).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32450898
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-00995-z
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-00995-z
pmc: PMC7249362
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
38Références
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2004 Apr-Jun;31(2):217-24
pubmed: 15255229
J Clin Nurs. 2006 May;15(5):581-7
pubmed: 16629967
BMJ. 2006 Feb 18;332(7538):413-6
pubmed: 16484270
Implement Sci. 2017 May 26;12(1):71
pubmed: 28549480
BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2017 Jun 16;6(1):
pubmed: 28674611
J Nurs Res. 2009 Dec;17(4):241-8
pubmed: 19955880
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Jan;101:103420
pubmed: 31630805
J Clin Nurs. 2019 Nov;28(21-22):4053-4061
pubmed: 31287603
BMJ Open Qual. 2018 Apr 27;7(2):e000177
pubmed: 29719874
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Jan;58(1):62-9
pubmed: 20122041
Rehabil Nurs. 2006 Nov-Dec;31(6):235-41
pubmed: 17133924
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):495-501
pubmed: 27512102
Healthc Manage Forum. 2016 May;29(3):99-103
pubmed: 27060808
J Community Health Nurs. 2008 Jul-Sep;25(3):161-74
pubmed: 18709577
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
pubmed: 13655060
J Nurs Care Qual. 2014 Jul-Sep;29(3):245-52
pubmed: 24390382
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Nov;87:34-39
pubmed: 30053680
Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Apr;46(4):459-69
pubmed: 18486133
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2016;29(4):8-9
pubmed: 28281445
Value Health. 2018 Apr;21(4):375-379
pubmed: 29680091
J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Jan;71(1):80-6
pubmed: 20129008
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997 Jun;45(6):675-81
pubmed: 9180659
Nurse Educ Pract. 2018 Sep;32:52-57
pubmed: 30029085
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013 Jan;61(1):107-12
pubmed: 23301773
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 06;13:255
pubmed: 26444862
BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1185-90
pubmed: 9794851
Implement Sci. 2020 Jan 9;15(1):2
pubmed: 31915032
J Pediatr Health Care. 2017 Mar - Apr;31(2):184-188
pubmed: 27567148
JAMA. 2018 May 15;319(19):1975-1976
pubmed: 29710232
Nord J Psychiatry. 2017 Oct;71(7):525-528
pubmed: 28719249
Am J Crit Care. 2016 Nov;25(6):479-486
pubmed: 27802948
Med Care Res Rev. 2017 Oct;74(5):507-550
pubmed: 27402662
Int J Nurs Pract. 2019 Apr;25(2):e12723
pubmed: 30656794
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):156-168
pubmed: 28077234
Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2016 Oct/Dec;38(4):327-335
pubmed: 27792075
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011 Nov;59(11):2029-36
pubmed: 22092189
Crit Care Nurse. 2018 Aug;38(4):e8-e16
pubmed: 30068727
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):40-6
pubmed: 12571344
JAMA. 2012 May 23;307(20):2177-84
pubmed: 22618925
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Jul;57(7):1139-48
pubmed: 19558484
Med Decis Making. 2008 Jan-Feb;28(1):138-45
pubmed: 18263564
Rehabil Res Pract. 2011;2011:284604
pubmed: 22110972
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;31(1):24-32
pubmed: 25845462
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011 Feb;59(2):333-9
pubmed: 21314651
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41
pubmed: 20171303