Implementation facilitators and barriers of person and family-centred emergency care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: At the time of the research, the nurses in the designated hospital's emergency department did not implement person- and family-centred care to the detriment of patients and families. They were, however, eager to embark on the implementation of the recommendations of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario for person- and family-centred care. Aim: This study therefore aimed to explore and describe the possible implementation facilitators and barriers prior to the use of the association's recommendations. Setting: The study included eight nurses with different specialisation fields and more than 5 years of experience in an emergency department. Methods: During focus group interviews with nurse participants, the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to explore whether the recommendations of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario could be used to structure person- and family-centred care in the emergency department of the designated hospital in the Mpumalanga province in South Africa. The framework guided the deductive data analysis. Results: The identified facilitators referred to a positive match between the recommendations and existing practice in the department. The barriers referred to the department's fast-paced work environment in which a combination of emergency and primary care is delivered. Conclusion: One of the facilitators referred to the participants being used to ongoing training by and communication from management to support their adjustment to improvements. One of the barriers referred to the department's fast-paced work environment. Contributions: The article contributes to practice improvement with a description of the use of frameworks to explore possible facilitators and barriers prior to endeavours to implement recommendations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".