IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i17-18p3242-3251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surgical nurses' perceptions and experiences of a medications and oral restrictions policy change: A focus group study

Author

Listed:
  • The‐Phung To
  • Gillian Dunnachie
  • Jo‐anne Brien
  • David A. Story

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore the perceptions and experiences of surgical nurses before and after introducing the Medications and Oral Restrictions Policy (the Policy). Background The Policy was developed following extensive consultation, and evidence‐based strategies were considered for its implementation. However, it is possible uptake did not meet expectations. Design Focus group interviews. Methods Three focus groups were conducted in November 2015 around ‘what worked, what didn't and why, before and after hospital‐wide implementation of the Policy.’ Data were coded and analysed using an inductive–deductive thematic analysis approach. The COREQ checklist guided reporting. Results The three groups consisted of 16, 14 and six surgical nurses. Before the Policy, there was confusion, lack of clarity and guidance, and lack of experience and confidence in managing medications when patients had oral restrictions. After the Policy rollout, there was a sense of ‘knowing what to do’ because of improved clarity and decision support; but there were also problems with: not everyone knowing about the policy, particularly due to staff movement and turnover; and, individual interpretation of the policy including use of its signs outside of context, and decision‐making processes. Conclusion Exploration of nurses' perceptions of a medication‐related policy change found that while the Policy provided clarity and decision support for some, it made little difference for others. Limited reach of the policy was an issue despite an effort to address this at the outset, as well as variations in interpretation of the policy and subsequent decision‐making. Relevance to clinical practice How individuals interpret information and their understanding of the context behind the policy or guideline may affect implementation and should be considered alongside other barriers when implementing medication‐related initiatives. Furthermore, implementation strategies that are independent of ongoing resources and/or key champions to sustain should be prioritised for all initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • The‐Phung To & Gillian Dunnachie & Jo‐anne Brien & David A. Story, 2019. "Surgical nurses' perceptions and experiences of a medications and oral restrictions policy change: A focus group study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3242-3251, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:17-18:p:3242-3251
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14898
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14898
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14898?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. Christine W. Nibbelink & Barbara B. Brewer, 2018. "Decision‐making in nursing practice: An integrative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 917-928, March.
    2. Ida Torunn Bjørk & Glenys A. Hamilton, 2011. "Clinical Decision Making of Nurses Working in Hospital Settings," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2011, pages 1-8, September.
    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. Nikolina Farčić & Ivana Barać & Robert Lovrić & Stana Pačarić & Zvjezdana Gvozdanović & Vesna Ilakovac, 2020. "The Influence of Self-Concept on Clinical Decision-Making in Nurses and Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Marion Tower & Bernadette Watson & Alison Bourke & Emma Tyers & Anne Tin, 2019. "Situation awareness and the decision‐making processes of final‐year nursing students," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(21-22), pages 3923-3934, November.
    3. Cristina Lavareda Baixinho & Óscar Ferreira & Marcelo Medeiros & Ellen Synthia Fernandes de Oliveira, 2022. "From Evidence Synthesis to Transfer: Results from a Qualitative Case Study with the Perspectives of Participants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-11, May.
    4. Daphne SK Lee & Khatijah Lim Abdullah & Pathmawathi Subramanian & Robert Thomas Bachmann & Swee Leong Ong, 2017. "An integrated review of the correlation between critical thinking ability and clinical decision‐making in nursing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4065-4079, December.
    5. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Angela Businarolo & Tiziana Piccin & Giuliana Pitacco & Livia Bicego, 2021. "Between Restrictive and Supportive Devices in the Context of Physical Restraints: Findings from a Large Mixed-Method Study Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Marina Bădileanu & Ileana Paula Ionel & Justin Aurelian & Daniel Alin Cristian & Cornelia Jude & Luminița-Izabell Georgescu & Ivona Răpan, 2022. "Perception and Deception in Nurses’ Clinical and Work-Related Professional Autonomy: Case Study for a Hospital in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    7. Nikolina Farčić & Ivana Barać & Jadranka Plužarić & Vesna Ilakovac & Stana Pačarić & Zvjezdana Gvozdanović & Robert Lovrić, 2020. "Personality traits of core self-evaluation as predictors on clinical decision-making in nursing profession," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-12, May.
    8. Sunyoung Oh & Minkyung Gu & Sohyune Sok, 2022. "A Concept Analysis of Nurses’ Clinical Decision Making: Implications for Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.

    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:28:y:2019:i:17-18:p:3242-3251. 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.