| Literature DB >> 25120927 |
Julianne Cassista1, Julie Payne-Gagnon2, Brigitte Martel3, Marie-Pierre Gagnon4.
Abstract
The manipulation of glass ampoules involves risk of particle contamination of parenteral medication, and the use of filter needles has often been recommended in order to reduce the number of particles in these solutions. This study aims to develop a theory-based intervention to increase nurse intention to use filter needles according to clinical guideline recommendations produced by a large university medical centre in Quebec (Canada). Using the Intervention Mapping framework, we first identified the psychosocial determinants of nurse intention to use filter needles according to these recommendations. Second, we developed and implemented an intervention targeting nurses from five care units in order to increase their intention to adhere to recommendations on the use of filter needles. We also assessed nurse satisfaction with the intervention. In total, 270 nurses received the intervention and 169 completed the posttest questionnaire. The two determinants of intention, that is, attitude and perceived behavioral control, were significantly higher after the intervention, but only perceived behavioral control remained a predictor of intention. In general, nurses were highly satisfied with the intervention. This study provides support for the use of Intervention Mapping to develop, implement, and evaluate theory-based interventions in order to improve healthcare professional adherence to clinical recommendations.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25120927 PMCID: PMC4121269 DOI: 10.1155/2014/356153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nurs Res Pract ISSN: 2090-1429
Figure 1The theory of planned behavior (adapted from Ajzen, 1991) [22].
Figure 2Poster for filter needles.
Details of the simulation strategy.
| Step (theoretical construct targeted) | Details | Parameters (examples) |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Presentation of scientific evidence (knowledge) | Present scientific evidence on the negative effects of glass ampoules for patients, information on research, and recommendations about the use of filter needles. | For modeling [ |
| (2) Preparing medication from a glass ampoule (perceived behavioral control) | Two nurses prepare medication contained in a glass ampoule (e.g., furosemide or narcotic). One uses a filter needle; the other uses a standard needle. | |
| (3) Positive feedback (reinforcement) | Do positive feedback during the simulation (ability of nurses to manipulate the equipment and to prepare medication). | For reinforcement [ |
| (4) Pointing out ease of use (perceived behavioral control) | Point out the ease of use of filter needles. | |
| (5) Mental imagery of glass particles (attitude) | Lead nurses through imagining glass particles (with pictures) injected in the patient and the microorganisms that become lodged in the capillaries, blocking them. | |
| (6) Comparing time between filter and standard needles (perceived behavioral control) | When the medication is prepared, do a comparison between the time taken to prepare the medication with the filter needle and the standard needle. | For persuasion [ |
| (7) Verbalization of the situation | Allow time for verbalization of the situation for the nurses who prepared the medication. | |
| (8) Inversing the roles (perceived behavioral control) | Do the simulation again by inversing the roles of the two nurses. | |
| (9) Feedback and evaluation (perceived behavioral control) | Following the simulation, evaluate the potential barriers to the use of filter needles on the unit. Find solutions, if possible. Offer follow-up if there is an impasse or obstacle that was not resolved. | |
| (10) Verbalization of the intervention | Allow time for a verbalization of the overall experience with the intervention. |
Characteristics of the participants, before and after intervention.
| (1) Preintervention questionnaire | ||
|---|---|---|
| Participants' characteristics | All participants | |
| ( | ||
|
| % | |
| Care units | ||
| 1 (ICU) | 18 | 7.4 |
| 2 (PICU) | 32 | 13.2 |
| 3 (NICU) | 56 | 23.1 |
| 4 (pediatric) | 12 | 5.0 |
| 5 (pediatric) | 39 | 16.1 |
| 6 (pediatric) | 16 | 6.6 |
| 7 (ICU) | 21 | 8.7 |
| 8 (ICU) | 48 | 19.8 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 30 | 12.6 |
| Female | 209 | 87.4 |
| Age | ||
| 19–25 | 52 | 21.7 |
| 26–30 | 52 | 21.8 |
| 31–35 | 36 | 15.1 |
| 36–40 | 28 | 11.7 |
| >40 | 71 | 29.7 |
| Highest educational grade | ||
| College | 99 | 41.4 |
| Certificate | 10 | 4.2 |
| B.S. | 123 | 51.5 |
| M.S. | 3 | 1.3 |
| Other studies | 4 | 1.7 |
| Years of experience | ||
| 0–5 | 79 | 33.1 |
| 6–10 | 48 | 20.1 |
| 11–15 | 44 | 18.4 |
| >20 | 57 | 23.8 |
|
| ||
| (2) Postintervention questionnaire | ||
| Participants' characteristics2 | All participants | |
| ( | ||
|
| % | |
|
| ||
| Care units | ||
| 2 (PICU) | 20 | 51.3 |
| 3 (NICU) | 65 | 50.0 |
| 4 (pediatric) | 25 | 83.3 |
| 5 (pediatric) | 36 | 80.0 |
| 6 (pediatric) | 23 | 88.5 |
1Three respondents did not answer the four questions related to sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, education and experience), reducing the total number of participants for these questions to 239.
2Other sociodemographic data were not collected for this questionnaire.
Differences between pre- and postintervention scores on survey items1.
| Item | Mean score before intervention (SD) | Mean score after intervention (SD) | Difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT1 | 6.51 (0.88) | 6.88 (0.46) | 0.37 | <0.0001 |
| ATT2 | 6.24 (0.97) | 6.85 (0.38) | 0.61 | <0.0001 |
| ATT3 | 6.43 (0.96) | 6.89 (0.54) | 0.46 | <0.0001 |
| ATT4 | 5.95 (1.20) | 6.79 (0.55) | 0.85 | <0.0001 |
| ATT5 | 5.15 (1.28) | 5.90 (1.32) | 0.75 | <0.0001 |
| ATT6 | 5.05 (1.31) | 6.00 (1.20) | 0.95 | <0.0001 |
| PBC1 | 6.53 (0.72) | 6.84 (0.70) | 0.32 | <0.0001 |
| PBC2 | 6.31 (1.08) | 6.68 (1.15) | 0.36 | 0.0014 |
| PBC3 | 6.65 (0.73) | 6.93 (0.50) | 0.28 | <0.0001 |
| INT1 | 6.69 (0.66) | 6.94 (0.49) | 0.25 | <0.0001 |
1We present the t-test instead of the Wilcoxon rank test to facilitate understanding of the data. The two tests produced the same results.
Nurse satisfaction with the intervention.
| Item |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| SAT1 | Met my needs | 5 (3.0) | 164 (97.0) |
| SAT2 | Seemed pertinent to me | 2 (1.2) | 167 (98.8) |
| SAT3 | Was of an adequate length | 3 (1.8) | 166 (98.3) |
| SAT4 | Made me learn something | 4 (2.4) | 165 (97.7) |
| SAT5 | Will be useful for my practice | 2 (1.2) | 167 (98.8) |
| SATG | In general, what is your level of satisfaction related to the training received? | 5 (3.0) | 163 (97.0) |
1Percentage after exclusion of missing values.