Onset PrevenTIon of urinary retention in Orthopaedic Nursing and rehabilitation, OPTION—a study protocol for a randomised trial by a multi-professional facilitator team and their first-line managers’ implementation strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Onset PrevenTIon of urinary retention in Orthopaedic Nursing and rehabilitation, OPTION, project aims to progress knowledge translation vis-à-vis evidence-based bladder monitoring in orthopaedic care, to decrease the risk of urinary retention, and voiding complications. Urinary retention is common whilst in hospital for hip surgery. If not properly identified and managed, there is a high risk of complications, some lifelong and life threatening. Although evidence-based guidelines are available, the implementation is lagging. METHODS: Twenty orthopaedic sites are cluster randomised into intervention and control sites, respectively. The intervention sites assemble local facilitator teams among nursing and rehabilitation staff, including first-line managers. The teams receive a 12-month support programme, including face-to-face events and on-demand components to map and bridge barriers to guideline implementation, addressing leadership behaviours and de-implementation of unproductive routines. All sites have access to the guidelines via a public healthcare resource, but the control sites have no implementation support. Baseline data collection includes structured assessments of urinary retention procedures via patient records, comprising incidence and severity of voiding issues and complications, plus interviews with managers and staff, and surveys to all hip surgery patients with interviews across all sites. Further assessments of context include the Alberta Context Tool used with staff, the 4Ps tool for preference-based patient participation used with patients, and data on economic aspects of urinary bladder care. During the implementation intervention, all events are recorded, and the facilitators keep diaries. Post intervention, the equivalent data collections will be repeated twice, and further data will include experiences of the intervention and guideline implementation. Data will be analysed with statistical analyses, including comparisons before and after, and between intervention and control sites. The qualitative data are subjected to content analysis, and mixed methods are applied to inform both clinical outcomes and the process evaluation, corresponding to a hybrid design addressing effectiveness, experiences, and outcomes. DISCUSSION: The OPTION trial has a potential to account for barriers and enablers for guideline implementation in the orthopaedic context in general and hip surgery care in particular. Further, it may progress the understanding of implementation leadership by dyads of facilitators and first-line managers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered as NCT04700969 with the U.S. National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry on 8 January 2021, that is, prior to the baseline data collection.
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 | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.010 |
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".