1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation frameworks, strategies and outcomes used in peripheral intravenous catheter studies: A systematic review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aims

          The aim of this study was to critically evaluate implementation frameworks, strategies and/or outcomes used to optimise peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) care and/or promote guideline adherence.

          Background

          Although a considerable volume of research has investigated the effectiveness of PIVC interventions and treatments to promote performance and prevent harm, how to best implement this evidence into dynamic clinical settings and populations is not well understood. Implementation science is central to translating evidence‐based knowledge to the bedside; however, there is a gap in identifying the best implementation framework, strategies and/or outcomes to optimise PIVC care and/or guideline adherence.

          Design

          A systematic review.

          Method

          The review was conducted using innovative automation tools. Five databases and clinical trial registries were searched on 14 October 2021. Qualitative and quantitative PIVC intervention studies reporting implementation strategies were included in the review. Data were extracted independently by experienced researchers in pairs. The Mixed Method Appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of individual studies. Narrative synthesis was used to present the findings. The systematic review was reported following the PRISMA checklist.

          Results

          Of 2189 references identified, 27 studies were included in the review. Implementation frameworks were used in 30% ( n = 8) of studies, with most used during the preparation ( n = 7, 26%) and delivery phase ( n = 7, 26%) and then evaluation phase ( n = 4, 15%). Multifaceted strategies were commonly adopted ( n = 24, 89%) to promote PIVC care or study interventions which were clinician ( n = 25, 93%) and patient‐targeted ( n = 15, 56%). The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity ( n = 13, 48%) and adoption ( n = 6, 22%). Most studies were scored as low quality ( n = 18, 67%).

          Conclusion

          We call for researchers and clinicians to work together and use implementation science frameworks to guide study design, implementation and evaluation in future PIVC studies, to improve evidence translation and thereby improve patient outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

            An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project

              Background Identifying, developing, and testing implementation strategies are important goals of implementation science. However, these efforts have been complicated by the use of inconsistent language and inadequate descriptions of implementation strategies in the literature. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study aimed to refine a published compilation of implementation strategy terms and definitions by systematically gathering input from a wide range of stakeholders with expertise in implementation science and clinical practice. Methods Purposive sampling was used to recruit a panel of experts in implementation and clinical practice who engaged in three rounds of a modified Delphi process to generate consensus on implementation strategies and definitions. The first and second rounds involved Web-based surveys soliciting comments on implementation strategy terms and definitions. After each round, iterative refinements were made based upon participant feedback. The third round involved a live polling and consensus process via a Web-based platform and conference call. Results Participants identified substantial concerns with 31% of the terms and/or definitions and suggested five additional strategies. Seventy-five percent of definitions from the originally published compilation of strategies were retained after voting. Ultimately, the expert panel reached consensus on a final compilation of 73 implementation strategies. Conclusions This research advances the field by improving the conceptual clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness of implementation strategies that can be used in isolation or combination in implementation research and practice. Future phases of ERIC will focus on developing conceptually distinct categories of strategies as well as ratings for each strategy’s importance and feasibility. Next, the expert panel will recommend multifaceted strategies for hypothetical yet real-world scenarios that vary by sites’ endorsement of evidence-based programs and practices and the strength of contextual supports that surround the effort. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Clinical Nursing
                Journal of Clinical Nursing
                Wiley
                0962-1067
                1365-2702
                September 2023
                March 27 2023
                September 2023
                : 32
                : 17-18
                : 6706-6722
                Affiliations
                [1 ] NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland Griffith University Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [2 ] Emergency Department Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Queensland Health Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [3 ] School of Nursing and Midwifery Queensland University of Technology Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [4 ] School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work The University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [5 ] Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [6 ] Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia
                [7 ] NHMRC CRE in Wiser Wound Care, Menzies Health Institute Queensland Griffith University Gold Coast Queensland Australia
                [8 ] Gold Coast University Hospital Gold Coast Health Gold Coast Queensland Australia
                [9 ] Institute for Evidence‐Based Healthcare Bond University Gold Coast Queensland Australia
                [10 ] School of Nursing and Midwifery Griffith University Brisbane Queensland Australia
                Article
                10.1111/jocn.16671
                36970881
                ad3a39f9-3ca4-4558-a21e-c3bd49e257a0
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article