IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v23y2014i5-6p716-730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the implementation of a bowel management protocol in intensive care: effect on clinician practices and patient outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Serena Knowles
  • Elizabeth McInnes
  • Doug Elliott
  • Jennifer Hardy
  • Sandy Middleton

Abstract

Aims and objectives To evaluate the effect of a multifaceted implementation of a bowel management protocol on outcomes for intensive care patients, in particular the incidence of constipation and diarrhoea, and on clinicians' bowel management practices. Background Complications associated with poor bowel management for critically ill patients result in adverse outcomes. Implementation of protocols requires strategies proven to change clinician behaviour. Design Before and after study. Methods Our bowel management protocol was implemented using three evidence‐based elements: education sessions, printed educational materials in the form of a fact sheet and reminders. We retrospectively collected data from patients' medical records admitted at two time points within three Sydney metropolitan intensive care units (preimplementation, n = 101; postimplementation, n = 107). Results No significant difference was found in the incidence of constipation and diarrhoea pre and postimplementation of the protocol. Seventy‐two per cent (n = 73) of patients preimplementation and 70% (n = 75) of patients postimplementation experienced one or more episodes of constipation (bowels not open for 72 hours or greater), and 16% (n = 16) of patients preimplementation and 20% (n = 21) of patients postimplementation experienced one or more episodes of diarrhoea. There was a slight nonsignificant increase in bowel assessment on admission by medical officers postimplementation (pre, 47%, n = 48; post, 60%, n = 64). Conclusion Targeted multifaceted implementation of a bowel management protocol did not have an impact on the incidence of constipation or diarrhoea for intensive care patients or on clinician practices. The lack of impact on patient outcomes may be due to clinicians' nonadherence to our bowel management protocol. Reasons clinicians' practices did not change may include the influences of clinical decision‐making on behaviour. Relevance to clinical practice This study highlights difficulties inherent in changing clinician behaviour and practices to improve patient outcomes despite using an evidence‐based multifaceted implementation strategy. Further research is required to ascertain the most effective implementation strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Serena Knowles & Elizabeth McInnes & Doug Elliott & Jennifer Hardy & Sandy Middleton, 2014. "Evaluation of the implementation of a bowel management protocol in intensive care: effect on clinician practices and patient outcomes," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5-6), pages 716-730, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:5-6:p:716-730
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12448
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12448
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12448?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicola Manning & John W Albarran, 2016. "Low‐dose intensive insulin therapy in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome accompanied by Left Ventricular Failure: audit of two UK hospitals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(19-20), pages 3001-3009, October.
    2. Dawn Warren & Bridie Kent, 2019. "Determining the impact of a bowel management protocol on patients and clinicians' compliance in cardiac intensive care: A mixed‐methods approach," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1-2), pages 89-103, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:23:y:2014:i:5-6:p:716-730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.