Nursing unit leaders' influence on the long-term sustainability of evidence-based practice improvements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe how actions of nursing unit leaders influenced the long-term sustainability of a best practice guidelines (BPG) program on inpatient units. BACKGROUND: Several factors influence the initial implementation of evidence-based practice improvements in nursing, with leadership recognized as essential. However, there is limited knowledge about enduring change, including how frontline nursing leaders influence the sustainability of practice improvements over the long term. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive case study included 39 in-depth interviews, observations, and document reviews. Four embedded nursing unit subcases had differing levels of program sustainability at 7 years (average) following implementation. RESULTS: Higher levels of BPG sustainability occurred on units where formal leadership teams used an integrated set of strategies and activities. Two key strategies were maintaining priorities and reinforcing expectations. The coordinated use of six activities (e.g., discussing, evaluating, integrating) promoted the continuation of BPG practices among staff. These leadership processes, fostering exchange and learning, contributed to sustainability-promoting environments characterized by teamwork and accountability. CONCLUSIONS: Unit leaders are required to strategically orchestrate several overlapping and synergistic efforts to achieve long-term sustainability of BPG-based practice improvements. IMPLICATIONS: As part of managing overall unit performance, unit leaders may influence practice improvement sustainability by aligning vision, strategies, and activities.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it