4.5 Article

Multi-level barriers analysis to promote guideline based nursing care: a leadership strategy from home health care

期刊

JOURNAL OF NURSING MANAGEMENT
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 762-770

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/jonm.12129

关键词

barriers assessment; clinical practice guidelines; implementing change; leadership; management; taxonomy

资金

  1. Ministry of Health and Long Term Care of Ontario
  2. Canadian Nurses Foundation
  3. Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Understanding the types of barriers that exist when implementing change can assist healthcare managers to tailor implementation strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Aim The aim of this paper is to present an organising framework, the Barriers Assessment Taxonomy, for understanding barriers to nurses' use of clinical practice guideline recommendations. Barriers to recommendations are illustrated using the Barriers Assessment Taxonomy and insights discussed. Method As part of a pilot implementation study, semi-structured interviews (n=26) were conducted to understand barriers to nurses' use of nine guideline recommendations for diabetic foot ulcers. Content analysis of verbatim transcripts included thematic coding and categorising barriers using the Barriers Assessment Taxonomy. Results Nineteen barriers were associated with nine recommendations, crossing five levels of the health care delivery system. The Barriers Assessment Taxonomy revealed that all recommendations had individual and organisational level barriers, with one recommendation having barriers at all levels. Individual level barriers were most frequent and lack of knowledge and skills was the only barrier that crossed all recommendations. Implications for nursing management The Barriers Assessment Taxonomy provides a framework for nursing managers to understand the complexity of barriers that exist, and can assist in choosing intervention strategies to support improved quality care and patient outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据