IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i1-2pe269-e286.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimising implementation of a patient‐assessment framework for emergency nurses: A mixed‐method study

Author

Listed:
  • Belinda Munroe
  • Kate Curtis
  • Thomas Buckley
  • Melinda Lewis
  • Lou Atkins

Abstract

Aims and objectives To determine potential facilitators and barriers and tailor interventions to optimise future implementation of a patient‐assessment framework into emergency nursing practice. Background An evidence‐informed patient‐assessment framework HIRAID (History, Identify Red flags, Assessment, Interventions, Diagnostics, communication and reassessment) improves the quality of patient assessments performed by emergency nurses. Facilitators and barriers must be understood and tailored interventions selected to optimise implementation. Design A mixed‐method convergent study design was used. Methods Thirty eight early career emergency nurses from five Australian hospitals participated in an education workshop on the HIRAID assessment framework. Simulated clinical scenarios enabled participants to experience conducting a patient assessment with and without using the framework. All participants completed surveys, interviews and focus groups to identify potential facilitators and barriers. Twenty three participants completed follow‐up telephone surveys 4–6 months later. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately using descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis, prior to integration. Implementation interventions were selected using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Results Nine facilitators and nine barriers were identified to potentially effect implementation of the HIRAID assessment framework. Twelve of the 23 participants (52.2%) who completed follow‐up surveys reported using the framework in the clinical setting. To optimise future implementation, the education workshop needs refinement, and environmental restructuring, modelling and social support are required. Conclusion A multimodal strategy is needed to promote future successful implementation of the HIRAID assessment framework into emergency nursing practice. Relevance for clinical practice The successful implementation of the HIRAID assessment framework has the potential to improve nursing assessments of patients in emergency and other acute care settings. This study demonstrates how to systematically identify facilitators and barriers to behaviour change and select interventions to optimise implementation of evidence‐informed nursing practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Belinda Munroe & Kate Curtis & Thomas Buckley & Melinda Lewis & Lou Atkins, 2018. "Optimising implementation of a patient‐assessment framework for emergency nurses: A mixed‐method study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1-2), pages 269-286, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:1-2:p:e269-e286
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13932
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13932
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13932?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Belinda Munroe & Kate Curtis & Margaret Murphy & Luke Strachan & Julie Considine & Jennifer Hardy & Mark Wilson & Kate Ruperto & Judith Fethney & Thomas Buckley, 2016. "A structured framework improves clinical patient assessment and nontechnical skills of early career emergency nurses: a pre–post study using full immersion simulation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2262-2274, August.
    2. Belinda Munroe & Kate Curtis & Julie Considine & Thomas Buckley, 2013. "The impact structured patient assessment frameworks have on patient care: an integrative review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(21-22), pages 2991-3005, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katherine Lambe & Judy Currey & Julie Considine, 2017. "Emergency nurses’ decisions regarding frequency and nature of vital sign assessment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(13-14), pages 1949-1959, July.
    2. Clint Douglas & Catriona Booker & Robyn Fox & Carol Windsor & Sonya Osborne & Glenn Gardner, 2016. "Nursing physical assessment for patient safety in general wards: reaching consensus on core skills," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(13-14), pages 1890-1900, July.
    3. Margaret H. Sandham & Emma Hedgecock & Mevhibe Hocaoglu & Celia Palmer & Rebecca J. Jarden & Ajit Narayanan & Richard J. Siegert, 2022. "Strengthening Community End-of-Life Care through Implementing Measurement-Based Palliative Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Belinda Munroe & Kate Curtis & Margaret Murphy & Luke Strachan & Julie Considine & Jennifer Hardy & Mark Wilson & Kate Ruperto & Judith Fethney & Thomas Buckley, 2016. "A structured framework improves clinical patient assessment and nontechnical skills of early career emergency nurses: a pre–post study using full immersion simulation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(15-16), pages 2262-2274, August.
    5. David Luna-Aleixos & Irene Llagostera-Reverter & Ximo Castelló-Benavent & Marta Aquilué-Ballarín & Gema Mecho-Montoliu & Águeda Cervera-Gasch & María Jesús Valero-Chillerón & Desirée Mena-Tudela & Lau, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Meta-Instrument for Nursing Assessment in Adult Hospitalization Units (VALENF Instrument) (Part I)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-15, November.

    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:27:y:2018:i:1-2:p:e269-e286. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.