IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v26y2017i23-24p4506-4518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implementation evaluation and refinement of an intervention to improve blunt chest injury management—A mixed‐methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Curtis
  • Connie Van
  • Mary Lam
  • Stephen Asha
  • Annalise Unsworth
  • Alana Clements
  • Louise Atkins

Abstract

Aims and objectives To investigate uptake of a Chest Injury Protocol (ChIP), examine factors influencing its implementation and identify interventions for promoting its use. Background Failure to treat blunt chest injuries in a timely manner with sufficient analgesia, physiotherapy and respiratory support, can lead to complications such as pneumonia and respiratory failure and/or death. Design This is a mixed‐methods implementation evaluation study. Methods Two methods were used: (i) identification and review of the characteristics of all patients eligible for the ChIP protocol, and (ii) survey of hospital staff opinions mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. The characteristics and treatment received between the groups were compared using the chi‐square test or Fischer's exact test for proportions, and the Mann–Whitney U‐test for continuous data. Quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were coded in NVivo 10 using a coding guide based on the TDF and Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Identification of interventions to change target behaviours was sourced from the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy Version 1 in consultation with stakeholders. Results Only 68.4% of eligible patients received ChIP. Fifteen facilitators and 10 barriers were identified to influence the implementation of ChIP in the clinical setting. These themes were mapped to 10 of the 14 TDF domains and corresponded with all nine intervention functions in the BCW. Seven of these intervention functions were selected to address the target behaviours and a multi‐faceted relaunch of the revised protocol developed. Following re‐launch, uptake increased to 91%. Conclusions This study demonstrated how the BCW may be used to revise and improve a clinical protocol in the ED context. Relevance to clinical practice Newly implemented clinical protocols should incorporate clinician behaviour change assessment, strategy and interventions. Enhancing the self‐efficacy of emergency nurses when performing assessments has the potential to improve patient outcomes and should be included in implementation strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Curtis & Connie Van & Mary Lam & Stephen Asha & Annalise Unsworth & Alana Clements & Louise Atkins, 2017. "Implementation evaluation and refinement of an intervention to improve blunt chest injury management—A mixed‐methods study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4506-4518, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4506-4518
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13782
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13782?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
    ---><---

    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:26:y:2017:i:23-24:p:4506-4518. 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.