MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of Nursing Best Practice Champions in Diffusing Practice Guidelines: A Mixed Methods Study

2010· article· en· W2129259225 on OpenAlexafffund
Jenny Ploeg, Jennifer Skelly, Margo Rowan, Nancy Edwards, Barbara Davies, Doris Grinspun, Irmajean Bajnok, Angela Downey

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of VictoriaRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
KeywordsGuidelineBest practiceNursingQualitative researchHealth carePsychologyContext (archaeology)Nursing researchMultimethodologyQualitative propertyMedicineMedical educationPolitical sciencePedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While the importance of nursing best practice champions has been widely promoted in the diffusion of evidence-based practice, there has been little research about their role. By learning more about what champions do in guideline diffusion, the nursing profession can more proactively manage and facilitate the role of champions while capitalizing on their potential to be effective leaders of the health care system. AIM: To determine how nursing best practice champions influence the diffusion of Best Practice Guideline recommendations. METHODS: A mixed method sequential triangulation design was used involving two phases: (1) key informant interviews with 23 champions between February and July 2006 and (2) a survey of champions (N= 191) and administrators (N= 41) from September to October 2007. Qualitative findings informed the development of surveys and were used in interpreting quantitative information collected in phase 2. RESULTS: Most interview and survey participants were female, employed full-time, and had worked in practice for over 20 years. Qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that champions influence the use of Best Practice Guideline recommendations most readily through: (1) dissemination of information about clinical practice guidelines, specifically through education and mentoring; (2) being persuasive practice leaders at interdisciplinary committees; and (3) tailoring the guideline implementation strategies to the organizational context. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our research suggests that nursing best practice champions have a multidimensional role that is well suited to navigating the complexities of a dynamic health system to create positive change. Understanding of this role can help service organizations and the nursing profession more fully capitalize on the potential of champions to influence and implement evidence-based practices to advance positive patient, organizational, and system outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations133
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorldviews on Evidence-Based NursingSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207