Dawn Dowding1, David Russell2,3, Margaret V McDonald3, Marygrace Trifilio3, Jiyoun Song4, Carlin Brickner3,5, Jingjing Shang4. 1. Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Sociology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA. 3. Center for Home Care Policy and Research, Visiting Nurse Service of New York, New York, New York, USA. 4. Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, USA. 5. Business Intelligence and Analytics, Visiting Nurse Service of New York, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to outline how a clinical risk prediction model for identifying patients at risk of infection is perceived by home care nurses, and to inform how the output of the model could be integrated into a clinical workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 50 home care nurses. Interviews explored nurses' perceptions of clinical risk prediction models, their experiences using them in practice, and what elements are important for the implementation of a clinical risk prediction model focusing on infection. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed, with data evaluated using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two themes were derived from the data: (1) informing nursing practice, which outlined how a clinical risk prediction model could inform nurse clinical judgment and be used to modify their care plan interventions, and (2) operationalizing the score, which summarized how the clinical risk prediction model could be incorporated in home care settings. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate that home care nurses would find a clinical risk prediction model for infection useful, as long as it provided both context around the reasons why a patient was deemed to be at high risk and provided some guidance for action. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to evaluate the potential feasibility and acceptability of a clinical risk prediction model, to inform the intervention design and implementation strategy. The results of this study can provide guidance for the development of the clinical risk prediction tool as an intervention for integration in home care settings.
OBJECTIVE: The study sought to outline how a clinical risk prediction model for identifying patients at risk of infection is perceived by home care nurses, and to inform how the output of the model could be integrated into a clinical workflow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 50 home care nurses. Interviews explored nurses' perceptions of clinical risk prediction models, their experiences using them in practice, and what elements are important for the implementation of a clinical risk prediction model focusing on infection. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed, with data evaluated using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two themes were derived from the data: (1) informing nursing practice, which outlined how a clinical risk prediction model could inform nurse clinical judgment and be used to modify their care plan interventions, and (2) operationalizing the score, which summarized how the clinical risk prediction model could be incorporated in home care settings. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate that home care nurses would find a clinical risk prediction model for infection useful, as long as it provided both context around the reasons why a patient was deemed to be at high risk and provided some guidance for action. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to evaluate the potential feasibility and acceptability of a clinical risk prediction model, to inform the intervention design and implementation strategy. The results of this study can provide guidance for the development of the clinical risk prediction tool as an intervention for integration in home care settings.
Authors: Teus H Kappen; Kim van Loon; Martinus A M Kappen; Leo van Wolfswinkel; Yvonne Vergouwe; Wilton A van Klei; Karel G M Moons; Cor J Kalkman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David Russell; Dawn W Dowding; Margaret V McDonald; Victoria Adams; Robert J Rosati; Elaine L Larson; Jingjing Shang Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2018-06-14 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Dawn Dowding; David Russell; Marygrace Trifilio; Margaret V McDonald; Jingjing Shang Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Katy E Trinkley; Weston W Blakeslee; Daniel D Matlock; David P Kao; Amanda G Van Matre; Robert Harrison; Cynthia L Larson; Nic Kostman; Jennifer A Nelson; Chen-Tan Lin; Daniel C Malone Journal: BMJ Health Care Inform Date: 2019-04
Authors: Jingjing Shang; David Russell; Dawn Dowding; Margaret V McDonald; Christopher Murtaugh; Jianfang Liu; Elaine L Larson; Sridevi Sridharan; Carlin Brickner Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2020 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.028
Authors: Emma Wallace; Maike J M Uijen; Barbara Clyne; Atieh Zarabzadeh; Claire Keogh; Rose Galvin; Susan M Smith; Tom Fahey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692