Identification of implementation enhancement strategies for national comprehensive care standards using the CFIR-ERIC approach: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive care is important for ensuring patients receive coordinated delivery of healthcare that aligns with their needs and preferences. While comprehensive care programs are recognised as beneficial, optimal implementation strategies in the real world remain unclear. This study utilises existing implementation theory to investigate barriers and enablers to implementing the Australian National Safety and Quality Health Service Standard 5 - Comprehensive Care Standard in acute care hospitals. The aim is to develop implementation enhancement strategies for work with comprehensive care standards in acute care. METHODS: Free text data from 256 survey participants, who were care professionals working in acute care hospitals across Australia, were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) using deductive content analysis. Codes were then converted to barrier and enabler statements and themes using inductive theme analysis approach. Subsequently, CFIR barriers and enablers were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) using the CFIR-ERIC Matching Tool, facilitating the development of implementation enhancement strategies. RESULTS: Twelve (n = 12) CFIR barriers and 10 enablers were identified, with 14 barrier statements condensed into 12 themes and 11 enabler statements streamlined into 10 themes. Common themes of barriers include impact of COVID-19 pandemic; heavy workload; staff shortage, lack of skilled staff and high staff turnover; poorly integrated documentation system; staff lacking availability, capability, and motivation; lack of resources; lack of education and training; culture of nursing dependency; competing priorities; absence of tailored straties; insufficient planning and adjustment; and lack of multidisciplinary collaboration. Common themes of enablers include leadership from CCS committees and working groups; integrated documentation systems; established communication channels; access to education, training and information; available resources; culture of patient-centeredness; consumer representation on committees and working groups; engaging consumers in implementation and in care planning and delivery; implementing changes incrementally with a well-defined plan; and regularly collecting and discussing feedback. Following the mapping of CFIR enablers and barriers to the ERIC tool, 15 enhancement strategies were identified. CONCLUSION: This study identified barriers, enablers, and recommended strategies associated with implementing a national standard for comprehensive care in Australian acute care hospitals. Understanding and addressing these challenges and strategies is not only crucial for the Australian healthcare landscape but also holds significance for the broader international community that is striving to advance comprehensive care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».