Objectives: Research specifically addressing implementation strategies regarding nursing guidelines is limited. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of strategies used to... Show moreObjectives: Research specifically addressing implementation strategies regarding nursing guidelines is limited. The objective of this review was to provide an overview of strategies used to implement nursing guidelines in all nursing fields, as well as the effects of these strategies on patient-related nursing outcomes and guideline adherence. Ideally, the findings would help guideline developers, healthcare professionals and organizations to implement nursing guidelines in practice.Design: Systematic review. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018104615.Data sources: We searched the Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases until August 2019 as well as the reference lists of relevant articles.Review methods: Studies were included that described quantitative data on the effect of implementation strategies and implementation outcomes of any type of a nursing guideline in any setting. No language or date of publication restriction was used. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy was used to categorize the implementation strategies. Studies were classified as effective if a significant change in either patient-related nursing outcomes or guideline adherence was described. Strength of the evidence was evaluated using the 'Cochrane risk of bias tool' for controlled studies, and the 'Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment form' for cohort studies.Results: A total of 54 articles regarding 53 different guideline implementation studies were included. Fifteen were (cluster) Randomized Controlled Trials or controlled before-after studies and 38 studies had a before-after design. The topics of the implemented guidelines were diverse, mostly concerning skin care (n = 9) and infection prevention (n = 7). Studies were predominantly performed in hospitals (n = 34) and nursing homes (n = 11). Thirty studies showed a positive significant effect in either patient-related nursing outcomes or guideline adherence (68%, n = 36). The median number of implementation strategies used was 6 (IQR 4-8) per study. Educational strategies were used in nearly all studies (98.1%, n = 52), followed by deployment of local opinion leaders (54.7%, n = 29) and audit and feedback (41.5%, n = 22). Twenty-three (43.4%) studies performed a barrier assessment, nineteen used tailored strategies.Conclusions: A wide variety of implementation strategies are used to implement nursing guidelines. Not one single strategy, or combination of strategies, can be linked directly to successful implementation of nursing guidelines. Overall, thirty-six studies (68%) reported a positive significant effect of the implementation of guidelines on patient-related nursing outcomes or guideline adherence. Future studies should use a standardized reporting checklist to ensure a detailed description of the used implementation strategies to increase reproducibility and understanding of outcomes. (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Show less
Rietbergen, T.; Spoon, D.; Brunsveld-Reinders, A.H.; Schoones, J.W.; Huis, A.; Heinen, M.; ... ; Bodegom-Vos, L. van 2020
Background In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for... Show moreBackground In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures. Methods PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care' (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model. Results Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20). Conclusions The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used. Show less
Belfroid, E.; Steenbergen, J. van; Timen, A.; Ellerbroek, P.; Huis, A.; Hulscher, M. 2018
