Sustaining guideline implementation: A multisite perspective on activities, challenges and supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine activities conducted, challenges encountered and supports used when sustaining nursing practice guideline implementation in multiple healthcare organisations over 3 years. BACKGROUND: Numerous models and frameworks exist to guide the implementation of guidelines, yet very few focus on sustaining improved practice changes. It is not known if one intervention or multiple interventions are required, nor the long-term activities, challenges and supports for sustaining improved practices. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: We conducted focus group interviews with steering committee members and individual interviews with leaders and direct care providers at the end of a 3-year guideline implementation study. The National Health Service Sustainability Model was used to guide data collection and analysis. RESULTS: The eight sites included three teaching hospitals, a community hospital, a long-term care facility, two community health agencies and a community health centre. Individual interviews were conducted with 36 leaders and 26 direct care providers. Focus group interviews were conducted with steering committee members (n = 70) at each site. Guideline implementation activities (n = 45) included developing new outcome monitoring systems, conducting chart audits, communicating progress to internal stakeholders, appointing interprofessional staff to steering committees, developing educational sessions and resources for staff and patients, revising policies and procedures, and developing partnerships with external organisations. Supports included lessons learned from previous and concurrent change initiatives, and commitment, involvement and positive attitudes of staff and leaders. CONCLUSION: Activities identified by the participants addressed all 10 factors in the Sustainability Model in the three areas of process, staff and organisation. The challenges and supports encountered provide insights into the process of guideline implementation and sustainability. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: A multilevel action plan for staff, leaders and the organisation is recommended when introducing and sustaining practice changes.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | medium |
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 | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".