Dataset Information

How blogs support the transfer of knowledge into practice in the field of dementia palliative care: a survey of facilitators and barriers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Blogging can help to maximise the impact of one's work in academia and beyond by making research findings accessible for multiple knowledge users, such as healthcare professionals and the public, as well as other researchers. As part of the knowledge exchange and dissemination activities of the Model for Dementia Palliative Care Project, this study explored stakeholders' views of blogs as a means to translate research findings.

Methods

A web-based survey was developed, piloted, and revised. It was distributed electronically via key dementia and palliative care organisations websites, newsletters, social media platforms, and within the staff mailing lists of five Universities in Ireland. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

Results

Complete responses were received from 128 participants. The majority of respondents were healthcare researchers (n = 53), followed by healthcare providers (n = 46). The preferred methods of reviewing research findings were scientific papers, websites and news articles. Respondents read healthcare blogs "sometimes" (39.1%), with < 19% reading them "often" or "very often". Receiving an email notification might increase the likelihood of reading a new blog post for 83% of respondents. Barriers to engaging with blogs included lack of time, preference for other media, lack of awareness regarding available blogs, and concerns about the credibility and source of information. An appropriate length and the author of the blog were key features that encouraged engagement with a blog.

Conclusions

Despite respondents choosing a scientific paper as their preferred method to consume research findings, many indicated an openness to reading blogs on their area of interest. Creating concise, relevant, and credible blogs, and suitably promoting them, could increase the impact and reach of healthcare research, such as in the emerging field of dementia palliative care, and thus promote translation of research findings into practice.

SUBMITTER: Rukundo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9248102 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDementia has become a major public health issue worldwide due to its rapidly increasing prevalence and an increasing number of dementia-related deaths in long-term care facilities. The aim of this study was to examine health professionals' experiences of potential barriers and facilitators in providing palliative care for people with severe dementia in long-term care facilities.MethodsThis was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from four focus groups and 20 individual in-depth interviews with healthcare professionals from four Norwegian nursing homes. The data were analysed by thematic text analysis, as described by Braun and Clarke.ResultsThe major findings indicate that healthcare professionals experience a lack of continuity as the main barrier to facilitating palliative care. Time pressure and increased efficiency requirements especially affect the weakest and bedridden residents with dementia. The healthcare professionals feel conflicted between wanting to spend more time caring for each individual resident and feeling pressure to help everyone. Although resources are scarce, dying residents are always given priority by healthcare professionals, either by the hiring of extra personnel or the reorganization of tasks in a way that facilitates someone staying with the terminal resident. Advanced care planning was highlighted as a facilitator in providing palliative care, but the extensive use of temporary staff among nurses and doctors and the relocation between the sheltered and long-term wards threaten the continuity in planning and providing palliative care.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that healthcare professionals experienced several structural barriers that prevented the provision of palliative care to people with severe dementia in long-term care facilities. Increasing demands for economic rationality lead to a lack of continuity of care. Organizational changes, such as measures to increase the competence and the proportion of permanent employees and the prevention of burdensome end-of-life transitions, should be implemented to improve continuity and quality of care.

Project description:BACKGROUNDOver the last decade, paediatric palliative care teams (PPCTs) have been introduced to support children with life-limiting diseases and their families and to ensure continuity, coordination and quality of paediatric palliative care (PPC). However, implementing a PPCT into an organisation is a challenge. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary, secondary or tertiary care for implementing a newly initiated multidisciplinary PPCT to bridge the gap between hospital and home.METHODSThe Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI) was used to assess responses of 71 HCPs providing PPC to one or more of the 129 children included in a pilot study of a PPCT based at a university children's hospital. The MIDI (29 items) assessed barriers and facilitators to implementing the PPCT by using a 5-point scale (completely disagree to completely agree) and additional open-ended questions. Items to which ?20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree' and ?80% responded with 'agree/totally agree' were considered as barriers and facilitators, respectively. A general inductive approach was used for open-ended questions.RESULTSReported barriers to implementing a PPCT were related to the HCP's own organisation (e.g., no working arrangements related to use of the intervention [PPCT] registered, other organisational changes such as merger going on). Reported facilitators were mainly related to the intervention (correctness, simplicity, observability and relevancy) and the user scale (positive outcome expectations, patient satisfaction) and only once to the organisation scale (information accessibility). Additionally, HCPs expressed the need for clarity about tasks of the PPCT and reported having made a transition from feeling threatened by the PPCT to satisfaction about the PPCT.CONCLUSIONPositive experiences with the PPCT are a major facilitator for implementing a PPCT. Tailored organisational strategies such as working arrangements by management, concrete information about the PPCT itself and the type of support provided by the PPCT should be clearly communicated to involved HCPs to increase awareness about benefits of the PPCT and ensure a successful implementation. New PPCTs need protection and resources in their initial year to develop into experienced and qualified PPCTs.

Project description:Research has identified facilitators and barriers to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Few studies have evaluated which factors persist among healthcare clinicians with extensive education and training on EBP implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine facilitators and barriers to EBP implementation across a national sample of specialty-prepared EBP mentors in healthcare settings. Healthcare clinicians participating in an immersive 5-day EBP knowledge and skill building program were invited to complete a follow-up survey 12 months later to report on implementation experiences. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided content analysis of responses. A force field analysis using Lewin's change theory was used to assign numerical 'weights' to factors. Eighty-four individuals reported facilitators and barriers to implementation. The majority occurred within the inner setting of the CFIR model. Facilitators were strong leadership engagement (n = 15), positive EBP culture (n = 9), and resources (n = 4). Barriers included lack of resources (n = 21), poor leadership engagement (n = 19), implementation climate (n = 17), lack of relative priority (n = 12), and organizational characteristics (n = 9). Respondents also identified simultaneous facilitators and barriers within the process domain of the CFIR model. The construct of stakeholder engagement was a barrier when absent from the implementation process (n = 23), yet was a strong facilitator when present (n = 23). Implementation in healthcare settings appears most effective when conducted by an interprofessional team with strong leadership, resources, stakeholder engagement, and positive EBP culture. When these same factors are absent, they remain persistent barriers to implementation, even among specialty-trained healthcare clinicians.Supplementary informationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s43477-022-00051-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Project description:Aim and objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate current advanced practice Masters students' experience of clinical supervision, to explore how clinical supervision works in practice and to identify students' perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to clinical supervision in their workplace.BackgroundAdvanced practitioners, and in particular nurses, play a pivotal role in delivering health care across acute and primary care settings. These non-medical professionals fulfil a rapidly expanding proportion of roles traditionally undertaken by medically qualified staff within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and often lead specialist clinics and services. To prepare for the advanced practice role, individuals are required to undertake a Master's in advanced practice to develop the required skills and knowledge and work in clinical practice with a clinical assessor/supervisor to demonstrate competence and performance.DesignA mixed method study using an online descriptive cross-sectional survey and qualitative data were collected via focus groups and has been reported using the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study checklist.ResultsA total of 79 students completed the online survey (from 145 AP students), a response rate of 55%. Most respondents were nurses (n = 73) with 49 (62%) in a formal advanced practice trainee role, and the majority believed their clinical supervisor had a good understanding of advanced practice and the advanced practice role. Two focus groups were held with 16 participants in total. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (a) perceived level and amount of support from clinical supervisors, (b) skill level of clinical supervisors, (c) physicians and their perceptions on supervising, Advanced practitioners (d) clinical supervisors' preparation for the role and (e) transition from trainee to qualified advanced practitioner.ConclusionThe survey revealed that advanced practitioner students perceived that clinical supervisors and workplace colleagues had a good understanding of the advanced practice role with good levels of support in practice. A more coherent approach is required for clinical supervision and an implementation framework that can be formally evaluated.Relevance to clinical practiceSeveral significant barriers to clinical supervision for advanced practitioner students were identified, and there are currently more barriers (including COVID-19) than facilitators.

Project description:The importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.