Leadership Strategies to Influence the Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Support from nursing managers and administrators, together with the role of a dedicated project Lead, are consistently identified as important strategies for nurses to be able to use research evidence in their practice. However, little is known about the key behaviours and activities required to successfully implement and sustain research-based innovations in practice. This study describes the leadership behaviours and activities that influenced nurses' use of clinical practice guidelines. A secondary analysis of qualitative data was conducted to investigate factors that contributed to sustaining (or not) the use of clinical guidelines two and three years after implementation as part of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario Best Practice Guidelines project. Grounded theory techniques were used to develop a theoretical model of Leadership. Findings indicated a different pattern of leadership in organizations that sustained guidelines, when compared to those that did not. Three broad leadership strategies emerged as central to successfully implementing and sustaining guidelines: (1) facilitating staff to use the guidelines, (2) creating a positive milieu of best practices and (3) influencing organizational structures and processes. Leadership for guideline implementation was found to include such behaviours as support, role-modelling commitment and reinforcing organizational policies and goals consistent with evidence-based care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".