Ruth G M Vogel1,2, Gerrie J J W Bours3,4,5, Teuni H Rooijackers3,4, Silke F Metzelthin3,4, Petra M G Erkens3,4, Erik van Rossum3,4,5, Sandra M G Zwakhalen3,4,5. 1. Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands. r.vogel@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Living Lab in Ageing and Long-Term Care, Maastricht, The Netherlands. r.vogel@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 3. Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Living Lab in Ageing and Long-Term Care, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Research Centre for Community Care, Academy of Nursing, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Nurses in the Lead (NitL) programme consists of a systematic approach and training to 1) empower community nurses in implementing evidence, targeted at encouraging functional activities of older adults, and 2) train community nurses in enabling team members to change their practice. This article aims to describe the process evaluation of NitL. METHODS: A mixed-methods formative process evaluation with a predominantly qualitative approach was conducted. Qualitative data were collected by interviews with community nurses (n = 7), focus groups with team members (n = 31), and reviewing seven implementation plans and 28 patient records. Quantitative data were collected among community nurses and team members (N = 90) using a questionnaire to assess barriers in encouraging functional activities and attendance lists. Data analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: NitL was largely executed according to plan. Points of attention were the use and value of the background theory within the training, completion of implementation plans, and reporting in patient records by community nurses. Inhibiting factors for showing leadership and encouraging functional activities were a lack of time and a high complexity of care; facilitating factors were structure and clear communication within teams. Nurses considered the systematic approach useful and the training educational for their role. Most team members considered NitL practical and were satisfied with the coaching provided by community nurses. To optimise NitL, community nurses recommended providing the training first and extending the training. The team members recommended continuing clinical lessons, which were an implementation strategy from the community nurses. CONCLUSIONS: NitL was largely executed as planned, and appears worthy of further application in community care practice. However, adaptations are recommended to make NitL more promising in practice in empowering community nurse leadership in implementing evidence.
BACKGROUND: The Nurses in the Lead (NitL) programme consists of a systematic approach and training to 1) empower community nurses in implementing evidence, targeted at encouraging functional activities of older adults, and 2) train community nurses in enabling team members to change their practice. This article aims to describe the process evaluation of NitL. METHODS: A mixed-methods formative process evaluation with a predominantly qualitative approach was conducted. Qualitative data were collected by interviews with community nurses (n = 7), focus groups with team members (n = 31), and reviewing seven implementation plans and 28 patient records. Quantitative data were collected among community nurses and team members (N = 90) using a questionnaire to assess barriers in encouraging functional activities and attendance lists. Data analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: NitL was largely executed according to plan. Points of attention were the use and value of the background theory within the training, completion of implementation plans, and reporting in patient records by community nurses. Inhibiting factors for showing leadership and encouraging functional activities were a lack of time and a high complexity of care; facilitating factors were structure and clear communication within teams. Nurses considered the systematic approach useful and the training educational for their role. Most team members considered NitL practical and were satisfied with the coaching provided by community nurses. To optimise NitL, community nurses recommended providing the training first and extending the training. The team members recommended continuing clinical lessons, which were an implementation strategy from the community nurses. CONCLUSIONS: NitL was largely executed as planned, and appears worthy of further application in community care practice. However, adaptations are recommended to make NitL more promising in practice in empowering community nurse leadership in implementing evidence.
Authors: Silke F Metzelthin; Ramon Daniëls; Erik van Rossum; Karen Cox; Herbert Habets; Luc P de Witte; Gertrudis I J M Kempen Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Phillip J Whitehead; Esme J Worthington; Ruth H Parry; Marion F Walker; Avril E R Drummond Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Ruth G M Vogel; Gerrie J J W Bours; Silke F Metzelthin; Petra M G Erkens; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Sandra M G Zwakhalen; Erik van Rossum Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Federica Dellafiore; Rosario Caruso; Michela Cossu; Sara Russo; Irene Baroni; Serena Barello; Ida Vangone; Marta Acampora; Gianluca Conte; Arianna Magon; Alessandro Stievano; Cristina Arrigoni Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.390