The feasibility of implementing education on older person care to practice on medical units: Nurses’ perceptions and the influence of practice context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: As part of a larger primary study on evidence-informed practice with hospitalised older people, we aimed to (a) examine nursing staffs' perceptions of the interactive geriatric educational intervention and to explore how perceptions of their work context may influence their ability to enact the evidence-informed assessment and care approaches discussed during the educational sessions and (b) compare differences in perceptions of context between RNs, LPNs and HCAs. METHOD: A survey-based evaluation that used both closed and open-ended questions was conducted as part of an interactive educational intervention on cognitive impairment and managing responsive behaviours. Data were gathered on participants' perceptions of the education intervention and organisational context. RESULTS: Findings from this study suggest when education is tailored to nurses' articulated educational needs, it is well received; however, barriers to implementation exist. Assessment of the context by using a standardised survey tool to get the nursing staffs' perceptions of organisational context revealed strengths in leadership support and day-to-day interactions with other nurses and healthcare professionals, but potential barriers related to lack of facilitation to transfer new knowledge into practice existed. CONCLUSION: Providing evidence-based education related to care of older patients and evaluating nursing staffs' perceptions of the education and their context has laid the groundwork for a long-term relationship with the managers and nursing staff on the participating medical units. Further investigation about how best to incorporate the facilitator role into the medical units to support evidence-based practices with older patients is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: While nurses are receptive to new knowledge, the unpredictable workload of acute care creates challenges to implementing this new knowledge. Assessment of contextual factors that influence evidence-informed practice facilitates planning for implementation of new knowledge and support practice change.
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 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 | 0.027 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".