4.5 Review

Evaluation of Cueing Innovation for Pressure Ulcer Prevention Using Staff Focus Groups

期刊

HEALTHCARE
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 299-314

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare2030299

关键词

pressure ulcer prevention; long-term care; multidisciplinary healthcare teams; nursing interventions; diffusion of innovation; implementation

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Interdisciplinary Nursing Quality Research Initiative program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of the manuscript is to describe long-term care (LTC) staff perceptions of a music cueing intervention designed to improve staff integration of pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention guidelines regarding consistent and regular movement of LTC residents a minimum of every two hours. The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) model guided staff interviews about their perceptions of the intervention's characteristics, outcomes, and sustainability. Methods: This was a qualitative, observational study of staff perceptions of the PrU prevention intervention conducted in Midwestern U.S. LTC facilities (N = 45 staff members). One focus group was held in each of eight intervention facilities using a semi-structured interview protocol. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis, and summaries for each category were compared across groups. Results: The a priori codes (observability, trialability, compatibility, relative advantage and complexity) described the innovation characteristics, and the sixth code, sustainability, was identified in the data. Within each code, two themes emerged as a positive or negative response regarding characteristics of the innovation. Moreover, within the sustainability code, a third theme emerged that was labeled brainstormed ideas, focusing on strategies for improving the innovation. Implications: Cueing LTC staff using music offers a sustainable potential to improve PrU prevention practices, to increase resident movement, which can subsequently lead to a reduction in PrUs.

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