Developing Leadership Capacity for Guideline Use: A Pilot Cluster Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: The importance of leadership to influence nurses' use of clinical guidelines has been well documented. However, little is known about how to develop and evaluate leadership interventions for guideline use. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to pilot a leadership intervention designed to influence nurses' use of guideline recommendations when caring for patients with diabetic foot ulcers in home care nursing. This paper reports on the feasibility of implementing the study protocol, the trial findings related to nursing process outcomes, and leadership behaviors. METHODS: A mixed methods pilot study was conducted with a post-only cluster randomized controlled trial and descriptive qualitative interviews. Four units were randomized to control or experimental groups. Clinical and management leadership teams participated in a 12-week leadership intervention (workshop, teleconferences). Participants received summarized chart audit data, identified goals for change, and created a team leadership action. Criteria to assess feasibility of the protocol included: design, intervention, measures, and data collection procedures. For the trial, chart audits compared differences in nursing process outcomes. PRIMARY OUTCOME: 8-item nursing assessments score. Secondary outcome: 5-item score of nursing care based on goals for change identified by intervention participants. Qualitative interviews described leadership behaviors that influenced guideline use. RESULTS: Conducting this pilot showed some aspects of the study protocol were feasible, while others require further development. Trial findings observed no significant difference in the primary outcome. A significant increase was observed in the 5-item score chosen by intervention participants (p = 0.02). In the experimental group more relations-oriented leadership behaviors, audit and feedback and reminders were described as leadership strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that a leadership intervention has the potential to influence nurses' use of guideline recommendations, but further work is required to refine the intervention and outcome measures. A taxonomy of leadership behaviors is proposed to inform future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".