Developing team leadership to facilitate guideline utilization: planning and evaluating a 3-month intervention strategy
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
BACKGROUND: Research describes leadership as important to guideline use. Yet interventions to develop current and future leaders for this purpose are not well understood. AIM: To describe the planning and evaluation of a leadership intervention to facilitate nurses' use of guideline recommendations for diabetic foot ulcers in home health care. METHOD: Planning the intervention involved a synthesis of theory and research (qualitative interviews and chart audits). One workshop and three follow-up teleconferences were delivered at two sites to nurse managers and clinical leaders (n=15) responsible for 180 staff nurses. Evaluation involved workshop surveys and interviews. RESULTS: Highest rated intervention components (four-point scale) were: identification of target indicators (mean 3.7), and development of a team leadership action plan (mean 3.5). Pre-workshop barriers assessment rated lowest (mean 2.9). Three months later participants indicated their leadership performance had changed as a result of the intervention, being more engaged with staff and clear about implementation goals. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Creating a team leadership action plan to operationalize leadership behaviours can help in delivery of evidence-informed care. Access to clinical data and understanding team leadership knowledge and skills prior to formal training will assist nursing management in tailoring intervention strategies to identify needs and gaps.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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