Relationship Between Work Context and Adherence to a Clinical Practice Guideline for Peripheral Venous Catheters Among Registered Nurses in Pediatric Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is known that registered nurses' (RNs') work context is related to their use of research and that it can affect nurse and patient satisfaction, as well as the outcomes of care. However, little is known about the relationship between work context and nurses' adherence to clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this study was to describe RNs' adherence to a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on the management of peripheral venous catheters (PVCs), their perceptions of work context, and how nurses' work context and characteristics relate to guideline adherence. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted at a large pediatric university hospital in Sweden. Data were collected through a questionnaire on RNs' adherence to components of a CPG and by using the Alberta Context Tool to assess the nurses' perceptions of work context, including leadership, culture, feedback processes, and other organizational characteristics. RESULTS: Work context--in the form of structural and electronic resources, information sharing activities, and feedback processes--was in different ways associated with the adherence to the CPG components. The RNs' adherence on unit level varied: half the units demonstrated complete adherence on disinfection of hands, whereas a majority of the units reported less than 70% adherence on the use of disposable gloves and the daily inspection of a PVC site. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Our findings indicate that components in one CPG might require diverse implementation strategies because they are linked to different contextual factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".