ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based improvements in long-term care (LTC) are challenging due to human resource constraints. AIMS: To evaluate implementation of a multimodal, participatory intervention aimed at improving evidence-based care. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive design, we conducted and inductively analyzed individual interviews with staff at midpoint and end-point to identify action plan implementation processes and challenges. The 9-month intervention engaged professional and unregulated staff in an on-site workshop and provided support for their development and implementation of site-specific action plans. RESULTS: Ten of 12 enrolled sites participated for the full study period. Interviews were conducted with 44 and 69 participants at midpoint and end-point, respectively. Seven of 10 sites focused their action plan on team functioning and communication. Main achievements described at end-point were improved team communication, better staff engagement, and improved teamwork. Internal and external supports for action plan implementation were described as critical for success. DISCUSSION: Three factors influenced change: vertically and horizontally linked teams, external facilitator support for action plan implementation, and coaching by Best Practice Coordinators that emphasized organizational change and normalization of evidence-based practice. IMPLICATIONS: Team functioning and communication are forerunners of clinical practice changes in LTC. An off-site model of facilitation is promising and may provide a more efficient means to reach a wider array of LTC settings. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Practice changes need engagement of all staff.
Subject(s)
Long-Term Care/standards , Quality of Health Care/standards , Community-Based Participatory Research , Evidence-Based Practice/methods , Focus Groups , Humans , Interviews as Topic/methods , Long-Term Care/methods , Qualitative Research , Quality of Health Care/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
The authors propose a remediation process for nursing students at risk for clinical failure. The process is embedded within the context of clinical evaluation and includes the use of a learning contract as an integral component. The strengths and limits of the process and suggestions for further development are included.
