Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of co-created nursing innovations in a Dutch university hospital.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Jbi Evidence Implementation Pub Date : 2024-06-28 DOI:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000444
Myrthe van der Zanden, Onno Helder, Heleen Westland, Erwin Ista
{"title":"Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of co-created nursing innovations in a Dutch university hospital.","authors":"Myrthe van der Zanden, Onno Helder, Heleen Westland, Erwin Ista","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Escalating global nursing shortages require solutions for efficient care, fewer injuries and lost workdays. When commercial solutions are lacking, innovations developed through co-creation can be a viable alternative. However, many co-created nursing innovations are ineffectively implemented. Understanding the barriers and facilitators for the successful implementation of co-created nursing innovations is crucial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study explored nurses' perceived determinants influencing the implementation of co-created nursing innovations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with nurses at a Dutch university hospital who were working with co-created nursing innovations. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was employed to identify the barriers and facilitators. Data analysis followed a deductive theoretical thematic analysis approach based on the 14 TDF domains. Determinants were labeled as a barrier, facilitator, or both.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 14 TDF domains, 9 appeared relevant, including Intention, Professional Role and Identify, and Knowledge. The absence of a \"superuser,\" lack of storage space, and negative experiences during use were perceived as barriers to the implementation of nursing innovations. The importance of time-saving features, user-friendliness, reminders to use the innovation, and team enthusiasm were perceived as facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants confirmed that the Social Influences domain, combined with Behavioral Regulation and Knowledge, were barriers to implementation, while Intentions and Reinforcements and Rewards were seen as facilitators.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A235.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000444","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Escalating global nursing shortages require solutions for efficient care, fewer injuries and lost workdays. When commercial solutions are lacking, innovations developed through co-creation can be a viable alternative. However, many co-created nursing innovations are ineffectively implemented. Understanding the barriers and facilitators for the successful implementation of co-created nursing innovations is crucial.

Objective: This study explored nurses' perceived determinants influencing the implementation of co-created nursing innovations.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with nurses at a Dutch university hospital who were working with co-created nursing innovations. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was employed to identify the barriers and facilitators. Data analysis followed a deductive theoretical thematic analysis approach based on the 14 TDF domains. Determinants were labeled as a barrier, facilitator, or both.

Results: Of the 14 TDF domains, 9 appeared relevant, including Intention, Professional Role and Identify, and Knowledge. The absence of a "superuser," lack of storage space, and negative experiences during use were perceived as barriers to the implementation of nursing innovations. The importance of time-saving features, user-friendliness, reminders to use the innovation, and team enthusiasm were perceived as facilitators.

Conclusions: Participants confirmed that the Social Influences domain, combined with Behavioral Regulation and Knowledge, were barriers to implementation, while Intentions and Reinforcements and Rewards were seen as facilitators.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A235.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
荷兰一所大学医院实施共创护理创新的障碍和促进因素。
导言:全球护理人员短缺问题日益严重,这就需要有高效护理、减少受伤和损失工作日的解决方案。在缺乏商业解决方案的情况下,通过共同创造开发的创新方案不失为一种可行的替代方案。然而,许多共同创造的护理创新并未得到有效实施。了解成功实施共创护理创新的障碍和促进因素至关重要:本研究探讨了护士认为的影响共创护理创新实施的决定因素:我们采用半结构化访谈的方式,对荷兰一所大学医院中从事共创护理创新工作的护士进行了定性研究。我们采用了理论领域框架(TDF)来识别障碍和促进因素。数据分析采用基于 14 个 TDF 领域的演绎式理论主题分析方法。结果:在 14 个 TDF 领域中,有 9 个似乎与之相关,其中包括意图、专业角色和认同以及知识。没有 "超级用户"、缺乏存储空间以及使用过程中的负面体验被视为实施护理创新的障碍。省时功能的重要性、用户友好性、使用创新的提醒以及团队的热情被视为促进因素:参与者证实,社会影响领域以及行为调节和知识是实施的障碍,而意向和强化与奖励则被视为促进因素。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A235。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Comparison of two audit and feedback approaches: descriptive analysis of personal and contextual dynamics. Collaborative implementation science: a Can-SOLVE CKD case example. Improving communication among nursing staff at a children's hospital in the southern United States: a best practice implementation project. Improving the quality of medication administration practices in a tertiary Australian hospital: a best practice implementation project. Cross-disciplinary advance care planning in oncology and palliative care amidst a pandemic: a best practice implementation project.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1