Sustaining a nursing best practice guideline in an acute care setting over 10 years: A mixed methods case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To improve patient outcomes many healthcare organizations have undertaken a number of steps to enhance the quality of care, including the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) such as clinical practice guidelines. However, there is little empirical understanding of the longer-term use of guideline-based practices and how to ensure their ongoing use. The aim of this study was to identify the determinants and knowledge translation interventions (KTIs) influencing ongoing use of selected recommendations of an institutional pain policy and protocol over time from an organizational perspective and 10 years post implementation on two units within an acute care setting. Methods: = 16) level. Results: We identified 32 sustainability determinants and 29 KTIs influencing ongoing use of an EBP in acute care. Three determinants and eight KTIs had a continuous influence in all three time periods: implementation phase (0-2 yrs), sustained phase (>2-10 yrs.), and at the 10-year mark. Implementation of KTIs evolved with the level of application (e.g., department vs. unit) to fit the EBP within the context highlighting the need to focus on determinants influencing ongoing use. Sustainability was associated with continual efforts of monitoring and providing timely feedback regarding adherence to recommendations. KTIs used to embed recommendations into routine practices/processes positively influenced high adherence rates. Use of a participatory approach for implementation and sustainment and linking KTIs designed to incrementally address low adherence rates facilitated sustainment. Conclusion: This research provides insight into the relationship between implementation and sustainability determinants and related KTIs during implementation and sustained use phases. Unique determinants identified by department and unit nurses reflect their different perspectives toward the innovation based on their respective roles and responsibilities. KTIs fostered changed behaviors and facilitated EBP sustainment in acute care. Findings confirm the concept of sustainability is a dynamic "ongoing process."
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".