Delivering an Electronic Health Record Based Educational Intervention Promoting Peri-Operative Non-Pharmacological Pain Care as Part of a Randomized Controlled Trial: Mixed Method Evaluation of Inpatient Nurses’ Perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Best practice guidelines recommend educating surgical patients about non-pharmacological pain care (NPPC) techniques that can be used in addition to pain medication for perioperative pain management, given the risks for opioid misuse following surgery. As part of the parent non-pharmacologic options in postoperative hospital-based and rehabilitation pain management (NOHARM) clinical trial, we implemented the Healing After Surgery initiative, which leveraged the Epic electronic health record (EHR) to provide patients with education on NPPC techniques perioperatively. We disseminated educational materials directly to patients via the EHR patient portal and prompted patients to select the techniques they were most interested in using, which auto-populated the EHR so that their care team could view their preferences. We also built clinical decision support elements in the EHR to prompt and support inpatient nurses in providing patients with education and reinforcement for using their preferred NPPC techniques. Print materials, a website, a DVD, videos on hospital televisions, a toll-free number, and Zoom-based group calls provided additional education on NPPC techniques. Objective: This study evaluated nurses' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementing the EHR-based Healing After Surgery initiative. Methods: We invited inpatient nursing leaders and bedside nurses to participate in a semistructured interview. Inpatient nursing leaders were invited to complete a brief survey that asked them to rate their agreement with 7 items using a numeric rating scale (1=not at all, 10=a great deal). Results: Interview findings from 29 nurses revealed: (1) nurses gravitated towards providing NPPC techniques they were familiar with, (2) the initiative was patient-centric with opportunities to better engage patients, and (3) nurses experienced challenges implementing and prioritizing the intervention in the inpatient setting due to competing demands in a pandemic and postpandemic environment. Interviews revealed mixed effectiveness of implementation strategies. We received survey responses from 47 nursing leaders who indicated that their staff knew about the Healing After Surgery initiative (mean=7.53, SD=1.77) and what they were expected to do (mean=7, SD=1.88). They thought the Healing After Surgery initiative supported patients' pain management needs (mean=6.76, SD=2.24), endorsed it as a priority (mean=7.02, SD=2.56), and encouraged staff to support it (mean=5.98, SD=2.78). They indicated staff experienced some burden supporting the initiative (mean=3.93, SD=2.47), but supported some variation of the initiative continuing once the parent trial ended (mean=7.72, SD=2.62). Conclusions: Nurses understood the intervention's benefit but struggled to implement unfamiliar NPPC techniques and prioritize the initiative due to other clinical demands. Additional implementation strategies may be needed to better engage patients and facilitate intervention delivery.
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 | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 ».