Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to implement nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care: a qualitative interview study with Swiss nursing experts and managers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To support the implementation of nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care, in-depth knowledge of specific supporting factors and barriers is required. Conditions and structures of caring for people with dementia differ widely, depending on the country and the care context. Our study aimed to describe the experiences and opinions of nursing experts and managers with regard to facilitators and barriers to the implementation of nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using individual interviews based on qualitative vignettes as a useful stimulus to generate narrations allowing to study peoples' perceptions and beliefs. The study took place in nursing homes in the German-speaking part of Switzerland and in the Principality of Liechtenstein using purposive sampling. We intended to conduct the interviews face-to-face in a quiet room according to the participant's choice. However, due to the lockdown of nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, we performed interviews face-to-face and by video. We analysed data thematically following Braun and Clarke to achieve a detailed, nuanced description. To verify our interpretation and to ensure congruence with participants' perspectives, we conducted member checks. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) served to structure our manuscript.

Results

Six dyads of nursing home managers and nursing experts from six nursing homes took part in our study (n = 12). Our thematic analysis yielded seven themes reflecting facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care: «A common attitude and cohesion within the organization», «Commitment on several levels», «A needs-oriented implementation», «The effect and the public perception of the intervention», «A structured and guided implementation process», «Supporting knowledge and competencies», as well as «Resources for implementing the intervention».

Conclusions

To support the implementation of nurse-led interventions in long-term dementia care, active commitment-building seems essential. It is necessary that the value of the intervention is perceptible.Commitment-building is the precondition to reach the persons involved, such as nursing home managers, nursing staff, residents and relatives. Furthermore, nurses should precisely inform about the intervention. It is necessary that the value of the intervention is perceptible. In addition, nurses should adjust the interventions to the situational needs of people with dementia, thus. Therefore, it is important to support dementia-specific competencies in long-term care. Findings indicate that the barrier is determined by the intervention and its implementation - and not by the behaviour of the person with dementia.

SUBMITTER: Hirt J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7932832 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Traditional nurse call systems used in residential care facilities rely on patients to summon assistance for routine or emergency needs. Wireless nurse call systems (WNCS) offer new affordances for persons unable to actively or consciously engage with the system, allowing detection of hazardous situations, prevention and timely treatment, as well as enhanced nurse workflows. This study aimed to explore facilitators and barriers of implementation of WNCSs in residential care facilities. METHODS:The study had a cross-sectional descriptive design. We collected data from care providers (n = 98) based on the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovation (MIDI) framework in five Norwegian residential care facilities during the first year of WNCS implementation. The self-reporting MIDI questionnaire was adapted to the contexts. Descriptive statistics were used to explore participant characteristics and MIDI item and determinant scores. MIDI items to which ≥20% of participants disagreed/totally disagreed were regarded as barriers and items to which ≥80% of participants agreed/totally agreed were regarded as facilitators for implementation. RESULTS:More facilitators (n = 22) than barriers (n = 6) were identified. The greatest facilitators, reported by 98% of the care providers, were the expected outcomes: the importance and probability of achieving prompt call responses and increased safety, and the normative belief of unit managers. During the implementation process, 87% became familiar with the systems, and 86 and 90%, respectively regarded themselves and their colleagues as competent users of the WNCS. The most salient barriers, reported by 37%, were their lack of prior knowledge and that they found the WNCS difficult to learn. No features of the technology were identified as barriers. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the care providers gave a positive evaluation of the WNCS implementation. The barriers to implementation were addressed by training and practicing technological skills, facilitated by the influence and support by the manager and the colleagues within the residential care unit. WNCSs offer a range of advanced applications and services, and further research is needed as more WNCS functionalities are implemented into residential care services.

Project description:BackgroundThe Dutch multidisciplinary sciatica guideline recommends that the team of professionals involved in sciatica care and the patient together decide on surgical or prolonged conservative treatment (shared decision making [SDM]). Despite this recommendation, SDM is not yet integrated in sciatica care. Existing literature concerning barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation mainly focuses on one discipline only, whereas multidisciplinary care may involve other barriers and facilitators, or make these more complex for both professionals and patients. Therefore, this qualitative study aims to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by patients and professionals for SDM implementation in multidisciplinary sciatica care.MethodsWe conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with professionals involved in sciatica care (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons) and three focus groups among patients (six to eight per group). The interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Reported barriers and facilitators were classified according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The software package Atlas.ti 7.0 was used for analysis.ResultsProfessionals reported 53 barriers and 5 facilitators, and patients 35 barriers and 18 facilitators for SDM in sciatica care. Professionals perceived most barriers at the level of the organizational context, and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Patients reported most barriers and facilitators at the level of the individual professional. Several barriers and facilitators correspond with barriers and facilitators found in the literature (e.g., lack of time, motivation) but also new barriers and facilitators were identified. Many of these new barriers mentioned by both professionals and patients were related to the multidisciplinary setting, such as lack of visibility, lack of trust in expertise of other disciplines, and lack of communication between disciplines.ConclusionsThis study identified barriers and facilitators for SDM in the multidisciplinary sciatica setting, by both professionals and patients. It is clear that more barriers than facilitators are perceived for implementation of SDM in sciatica care. Newly identified barriers and facilitators are related to the multidisciplinary care setting. Therefore, an effective implementation strategy of SDM in a multidisciplinary setting such as in sciatica care should focus on these barriers and facilitators.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the facilitators and barriers to implement family doctor contracting services in China by using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to shed new light on establishing family doctor systems in developing countries.DesignA qualitative study conducted from June to August 2017 using semistructured interview guides for focus group discussions (FGDs) and individual interviews. CFIR was used to guide data coding, data analysis and reporting of findings.Setting19 primary health institutions in nine provinces purposively selected from the eastern, middle and western areas of China.ParticipantsFrom the nine sampled provinces in China, 62 policy makers from health related departments at the province, city and county/district levels participated in 9 FGDs; 19 leaders of primary health institutions participated in individual interviews; and 48 family doctor team members participated in 15 FGDs.ResultsBased on CFIR constructs, notable facilitators included national reform involving both top-down and bottom-up policy making (Intervention); support from essential public health funds, fiscal subsidies and health insurance (Outer setting); extra performance-based payments for family doctor teams based on evaluation (Inner setting); and positive engagement of health administrators (Process). Notable barriers included a lack of essential matching mechanisms at national level (Intervention); distrust in the quality of primary care, a lack of government subsidies and health insurance reimbursement and performance ceiling policy (Outer setting); the low competency of family doctors and weak influence of evaluations on performance-based salary (Inner setting); and misunderstandings about family doctor contracting services (Process).ConclusionsThe national design with essential features including financing, incentive mechanisms and multidepartment cooperation, was vital for implementing family doctor contracting services in China. More attention should be paid to the quality of primary care and competency of family doctors. All stakeholders must be informed, be involved and participate before and during the process.

Project description:BackgroundRobots in healthcare are gaining increasing attention; however, their implementation is challenging due to the complexity of both interventions themselves and the contexts in which they are implemented. The objective of this integrative review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic systems in nursing.MethodsArticles published from 2002 to 2019 reporting on projects to implement robotic devices in nursing care were searched on Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and databases on funded research projects (Community Research and Development Information Services and Technische Informationsbibliothek) and in journals for robotic research in November 2017 and July 2019 for an update. No restrictions regarding study designs were imposed. All included articles underwent quality assessments with design-specific critical appraisal tools. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework.ResultsAfter removing all duplicates, the search revealed 11 204 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. The majority of the studies dealt with the implementation of robots designed to support individuals, either living at home or in nursing homes (n=11). The studies were conducted in Europe, the USA and New Zealand and were carried out in nursing homes, individual living environments, hospital units and laboratories. The quality of reporting and quality of evidence were low in most studies. The most frequently reported barriers were in socioeconomic and ethical domains and were within the implementation outcomes domain. The most frequently reported facilitators were related to the sociocultural context, implementation process and implementation strategies.DiscussionThis review identified barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic devices in nursing within different dimensions. The results serve as a basis for the development of suitable implementation strategies to reduce potential barriers and promote the integration of elements to facilitate implementation.Prospero registration numberCRD42018073486.

Project description:Objectives The evolution of healthcare and biomedical research into data-rich fields has raised several questions concerning data ownership. In this paper, we aimed to analyse the perspectives of Swiss experts on the topic of health data ownership and control. Design In our qualitative study, we selected participants through purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and then analysed thematically. Setting Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person, via phone or online. Participants We interviewed 48 experts (researchers, policy makers and other stakeholders) of the Swiss health-data framework. Results We identified different themes linked to data ownership. These include: (1) the data owner: data-subjects versus data-processors; (2) uncertainty about data ownership; (3) labour as a justification for data ownership and (4) the market value of data. Our results suggest that experts from Switzerland are still divided about who should be the data owner and also about what ownership would exactly mean. There is ambivalence between the willingness to acknowledge patients as the data owners and the fact that the effort made by data-processors (eg, researchers) to collect and manage the data entitles them to assert ownership claims towards the data themselves. Altogether, a tendency to speak about data in market terms also emerged. Conclusions The development of a satisfactory account of data ownership as a concept to organise the relationship between data-subjects, data-processors and data themselves is an important endeavour for Switzerland and other countries who are developing data governance in the healthcare and research domains. Setting clearer rules on who owns data and on what ownership exactly entails would be important. If this proves unfeasible, the idea that health data cannot truly belong to anyone could be promoted. However, this will not be easy, as data are seen as an asset to control and profit from.

Project description:BackgroundDespite a supportive evidence base and a push to implement, the uptake of early rehabilitation in critical care has been inconsistent. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation for critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsUsing the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) of behavior change, we conducted semi-structured interviews exploring barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation among four purposively sampled ICU clinician groups (nurses, rehabilitation professionals, respiratory therapists, and physicians). The TDF is a comprehensive framework of 14 "construct domains," synthesized from 33 theories of behavior that was developed to study determinants of behavior and to design interventions to improve evidence-based healthcare practice. A topic guide was developed and piloted based on the TDF and expert knowledge. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were content analyzed by coding items into domains and then synthesized into more specific, over-arching themes or "beliefs." An expert consensus group used structured decision rules to classify beliefs as high, moderate, or low in importance.ResultsWe interviewed 40 stakeholders from the four clinician groups and identified 135 separate beliefs. Of these, 19 were classified as high, 40 as moderate, and 76 of low importance as barriers or facilitators. All beliefs classified as highly important fell within one of seven TDF domains: skills, social/professional role and identity, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, environmental context/resources, social influences, and behavioral regulation. Beliefs of lower importance fell under the following seven domains: knowledge; optimism; reinforcement; intention; goals; memory, attention, and decision processes; and emotion. Quantitative differences in stated beliefs about early rehabilitation between professional groups were not common.ConclusionsThis study identified important barriers and facilitators to early rehabilitation in critical care patients. Domains identified as important should be considered when designing interventions to increase uptake of early rehabilitation.