Dataset Information

How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Care quality varies between organizations and even units within an organization. Inadequate care can have harmful financial and social consequences, e.g. nosocomial infection, lengthened hospital stays or death. Experts recommend the implementation of nursing performance improvement systems to assess team performance and monitor patient outcomes as well as service efficiency. In practice, these systems provide nursing or interprofessional teams with nursing-sensitive indicator feedback. Feedback is essential since it commits teams to improve their practice, although it appears somewhat haphazard and, at times, overlooked. Research findings suggest that contextual dynamics, initial system performance and feedback modes interact in unknown ways. This rapid review aims to produce a theorization to explain what works in which contexts, and how feedback to nursing or interprofessional teams shape nursing performance improvement systems.

Methods

Based on theory-driven realist methodology, with reference to an innovative combination of Actor-Network Theory and Critical Realist philosophy principles, this realist rapid review entailed an iterative procedure: 8766 documents in French and English, published between 2010 and 2018, were identified via 5 databases, and 23 were selected and analysed. Two expert panels (scientific and clinical) were consulted to improve the synthesis and systemic modelling of an original feedback theorization.

Results

We identified three hypotheses, subdivided into twelve generative configurations to explain how feedback mobilizes nursing or interprofessional teams. Empirically founded and actionable, these propositions are supported by expert panels. Each configuration specifies contextualized mechanisms that explain feedback and team outcomes. Socially mediated mechanisms are particularly generative of action and agency.

Conclusions

This rapid realist review provides an informative theoretical proposition to embrace the complexity of nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interdisciplinary teams. Building on general explanations previously observed, this review provides insight into a deep explanation of feedback mechanisms.

Systematic review registration

Prospero CRD42018110128 .

SUBMITTER: Rapin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9404638 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review.

Rapin Joachim J Pellet Joanie J Mabire Cédric C Gendron Sylvie S Dubois Carl-Ardy CA

Systematic reviews 20220824 1

<h4>Background</h4>Care quality varies between organizations and even units within an organization. Inadequate care can have harmful financial and social consequences, e.g. nosocomial infection, lengthened hospital stays or death. Experts recommend the implementation of nursing performance improvement systems to assess team performance and monitor patient outcomes as well as service efficiency. In practice, these systems provide nursing or interprofessional teams with nursing-sensitive indicator ...[more]

PMID: 36002846

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNursing care quality varies between hospitals, and even between departments within the same institution. Suboptimal care can have deleterious consequences for patients such as lengthened hospital stay, nosocomial infection, pressure ulcers or death. Experts recommend the implementation of nursing performance improvement systems to assess team performance and monitor patient outcomes and efficiency savings. In practice, these systems are expected to include feedback processes directed towards nursing teams and interprofessional staff in order to facilitate adjustments and improve their performance. Unfortunately, feedback appears somewhat haphazard and, at times, overlooked. This could be explained by an ongoing absence of clear recommendations. As a result, feedback effects are inconclusive: some teams improve their practice, others do not. Although feedback has been conceptualised and studied from different theoretical perspectives, ongoing empirical inconsistencies remain unexplained. The goal of this rapid realist review protocol is to develop a theory that explains how feedback shared with interprofessional health care teams shape nursing performance improvement systems.MethodThis study follows standard guidelines established for realist reviews. Mechanisms at work will be analysed using Actor-Network Theory. All scientific documents are selected from five databases, are published in both English and French between 2010 and 2018, and include empirical research, reviews and grey literature. First, selection of documents will proceed on the basis of titles and abstracts; followed by a second selection by reading the remaining full texts. Inclusion criteria and a data extraction form will be pilot tested with 40 articles prior to completion by two reviewers. Data will be summarised in the form of [context, mechanism, outcome] equations to theorise operational feedback.DiscussionThe innovative combination of Actor-Network Theory with a realist methodology holds promise for the identification of explanatory equations in complex systems and theory development. A rapid realist review is relevant to address an enduring knowledge gap which requires theory development. This preliminary study lays the groundwork for a pioneering theory on feedback in nursing performance improvement systems that will subsequently inform a multiple case study.Systematic review registrationProspero CRD42018110128.

Project description:BackgroundUse of nursing-sensitive quality indicators (QIs) is one way to monitor the quality of care in nursing homes (NHs). The aim of this study was to develop a consensus list of nursing-sensitive QIs for Norwegian NHs.MethodsA narrative literature review followed by a non-in-person, two-round, six-step modified Delphi survey was conducted. A five-member project group was established to draw up a list of nursing-sensitive QIs from a preliminary list of 24 QIs selected from Minimum Data Set (2.0) (MDS) and the international Resident Assessment Instrument for Long-Term Care Facilities (interRAI LTCF). We included scientific experts (researchers), clinical experts (healthcare professionals in NHs), and experts of experience (next-of-kin of NH residents). The experts rated nursing-sensitive QIs in two rounds on a seven-point Likert scale. Consensus was based on median value and level of dispersion. Analyses were conducted for four groups: 1) all experts, 2) scientific experts, 3) clinical experts, and 4) experts of experience.ResultsThe project group drew up a list of 20 nursing-sensitive QIs. Nineteen QIs were selected from MDS/interRAI LTCF and one ('systematic medication review') from the Norwegian quality assessment system IPLOS ('Statistics linked to individual needs of care'). In the first and second Delphi round, 44 experts (13 researchers, 17 healthcare professionals, 14 next-of-kin) and 28 experts (8 researchers, 10 healthcare professionals, 10 next-of-kin) participated, respectively. The final consensus list consisted of 16 nursing-sensitive QIs, which were ranked in this order by the 'all expert group': 1) systematic medication review, 2) pressure ulcers, 3) behavioral symptoms, 4) pain, 5) dehydration, 6) oral/dental health problems, 7) urinary tract infection, 8) fecal impaction, 9) depression, 10) use of aids that inhibit freedom of movement, 11) participation in activities of interest, 12) participation in social activities, 13) decline in activities of daily living, 14) weight loss, 15) falls, and 16) hearing loss without the use of hearing aids.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary experts were able to reach consensus on 16 nursing-sensitive QIs. The results from this study can be used to implement QIs in Norwegian NHs, which can improve the quality of care.

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.BackgroundDespite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.MethodsA qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.FindingsA total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Project description:IntroductionHealthcare is changing due to the ageing of the general population, complex care demands and growing attention to person-centred care. To deal with these changes and provide the best possible person-centred care, the different professionals in nursing homes should all collaborate intensively. However, most professionals work within the field of their own expertise and share very little knowledge, experiences and insights. A lack of an interprofessional learning and working culture also prevents professionals with different expertise from working and learning intensively together to achieve high-quality person-centred care. There is a gap of knowledge about how to develop such a culture. Our aim is to provide insights into what actions, in what context and to what extent can contribute to an impactful development of an interprofessional learning and working culture.Methods and analysisThe realist action research design will be applied. It consists of three iterative steps: plan, act and observe, and reflect. First, we will formulate the theory about interprofessional learning and working culture and measure this culture by means of interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. Second, we will apply the nine principles of Practice Development to coach professionals from six Dutch nursing homes to improve their interprofessional learning and working culture. Finally, we will evaluate the impact of the changed attitudes and skills on healthcare practice.Ethics and disseminationApproval for the project was given by the Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen (HAN) Research Ethics Committee, the Netherlands, registration number EACO 164.12/19. All organisations, professionals and residents/family members will be informed verbally and by letter about the study and asked for informed consent. The results will be presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals, professional journals and at symposia and conferences. The findings will be transferred to an online toolbox and e-learning modules for graduated professionals and students.

Project description:ObjectiveInsights about what actions contributed to the development of an interprofessional learning and working culture were lacking for nursing homes. This study aimed to provide insight into the context and actions that trigger mechanisms for the development of an interprofessional learning and working culture in nursing homes.Study designRealist evaluation action research was conducted from 2019 to 2023.Setting and participants11 teams in 6 Dutch nursing homes.Primary and secondary outcome measuresQuestionnaires, focus group interviews and observations were used to identify actions, context factors and mechanisms. We used retroductive analysis to discuss how actions were related to the development of the culture. Actions were evaluated in terms of context and manner in which they contribute to the development.Results21 actions were identified and clustered into two themes. Theme 1: improving person-centred care. Actions activated the mechanisms of critical reflective behaviour and collective ownership in a context of, among other things, clear roles and tasks, a stable and competent team, the presence of case managers and facilitating organisational factors such as time for reflection. Theme 2: getting to know and understand each other's expertise. Actions activated respectful relationships, collective ownership of goals and feeling appreciated for your work in a context of, among other things, team members who meet regularly and management supporting interprofessional working.ConclusionsThis research sheds light on how and in what manner-specific actions contribute to the development of an interprofessional learning and working culture in nursing homes. Depending on the context, the actions triggered the following mechanisms: critical reflective behaviour, collective ownership of goals, respectful/caring relationships and feeling appreciated for your work. These mechanisms are the underlying drivers of an interprofessional learning and working culture. This study provides valuable guidance for fostering collaborative and effective interprofessional dynamics in nursing homes.

Project description:BackgroundDiagnostic errors are a major problem in healthcare. In 2015, the report "Improving Diagnosis in Health Care" by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) stated that it is likely that most people will experience at least one diagnostic error in their lifetime. The report suggests implementing diagnostic management teams, including patients and their relatives, diagnosticians, and healthcare professionals who support the diagnostic process, to limit diagnostic error and improve patient safety. Implementing interprofessional diagnostic management teams (IDMT), however, is not an easy task due to the complexity of the diagnostic processes and the traditional organization of healthcare with divided departments and healthcare professional who operate in different geographic locations. As this topic is still emerging, a scoping review is ideal to determine the scope of the body of literature on IDMT, indicate the volume of literature and studies available and identify any gaps in knowledge. In a long-term perspective, this scoping review will contribute to prevent diagnostic errors and improve patient safety, for adults and children with physical health issues.MethodsWe will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology and report it based on the PRISMA-ScR. We will systematically search six databases (EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, SCOPUS and Web of Science) for papers published between 1985 and 2023 that describe the use of interprofessional diagnostic management teams. The participants included will be adults and children seeking diagnostic care for physical health issues. The concept studied will be interprofessional diagnostic management teams, and the context will be the diagnostic process in the healthcare system. Studies examining the diagnostic process in psychiatry, odontology or complementary medicine will be excluded. Data extraction, including key study characteristics and findings, will be done by two reviewers independently. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion and eventually by including the two remainder reviewers.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review regarding IDMT and the derived effects on diagnostic safety and can therefore be a very important contribution to improve patient safety significantly during the diagnostic process.Protocol registrationThe project is registered at Open Science Framework (OSF) with ID: osf.io/kv2n6.

Dataset Information

How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets