Introducing multidisciplinary ward rounds in Malawi: a best practice implementation project.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Jbi Evidence Implementation Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000443
Beverley Johnson, Clare Bennett, Judith Carrier, Dianne Watkins, Chimwemwe Mula, Raphael Kazidule, Pricilla Salley, Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarova
{"title":"Introducing multidisciplinary ward rounds in Malawi: a best practice implementation project.","authors":"Beverley Johnson, Clare Bennett, Judith Carrier, Dianne Watkins, Chimwemwe Mula, Raphael Kazidule, Pricilla Salley, Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarova","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in the United Kingdom advocate the use of structured multidisciplinary team (MDT) ward rounds since they can enable safe, effective, improved care and enhanced staff satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This project sought to implement best practices for MDT ward rounds in a male medical ward in a hospital in Malawi.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project was conducted in line with the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework. A baseline audit of MDT ward rounds was conducted with six staff members. Audit criteria consisted of ten best practices, as recommended by JBI, the RCP, and the RCN. Stakeholder meetings were held to review the baseline audit results and highlight areas of non-compliance. JBI's Getting Research into Practice (GRiP) tool was used to identify barriers to compliance with best practices, and a follow-up audit was conducted to determine changes in practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results only showed improvement for one criterion, which rose from 33% to 100% (n=6) where nurses attended the ward round.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated some challenges in evidence implementation projects and how these can, in part, be overcome. While the results only demonstrated improvement for one criterion, this paper shows how audits can be used to promote best practice, which in this case resulted in nurses being more involved in ward rounds, improvements in MDT communication, enhanced nurse inclusion in decision-making and, consequently, patient care.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A233.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","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.0000000000000443","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: The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in the United Kingdom advocate the use of structured multidisciplinary team (MDT) ward rounds since they can enable safe, effective, improved care and enhanced staff satisfaction.

Objectives: This project sought to implement best practices for MDT ward rounds in a male medical ward in a hospital in Malawi.

Methods: The project was conducted in line with the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework. A baseline audit of MDT ward rounds was conducted with six staff members. Audit criteria consisted of ten best practices, as recommended by JBI, the RCP, and the RCN. Stakeholder meetings were held to review the baseline audit results and highlight areas of non-compliance. JBI's Getting Research into Practice (GRiP) tool was used to identify barriers to compliance with best practices, and a follow-up audit was conducted to determine changes in practice.

Results: The results only showed improvement for one criterion, which rose from 33% to 100% (n=6) where nurses attended the ward round.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated some challenges in evidence implementation projects and how these can, in part, be overcome. While the results only demonstrated improvement for one criterion, this paper shows how audits can be used to promote best practice, which in this case resulted in nurses being more involved in ward rounds, improvements in MDT communication, enhanced nurse inclusion in decision-making and, consequently, patient care.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A233.

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
在马拉维引入多学科查房:最佳实践实施项目。
导言:英国皇家内科学院(RCP)和皇家护理学院(RCN)提倡使用结构化的多学科小组(MDT)查房,因为这种查房可以实现安全、有效、更好的护理并提高员工满意度:本项目旨在马拉维一家医院的男科病房实施 MDT 查房的最佳实践:方法:该项目按照 JBI 证据实施框架进行。对六名工作人员进行了 MDT 查房基线审计。审核标准包括 JBI、RCP 和 RCN 推荐的十项最佳实践。召开了利益相关者会议,审查基线审计结果,并强调不符合标准的地方。利用 JBI 的 "将研究付诸实践"(GRiP)工具来确定遵守最佳做法的障碍,并进行后续审计以确定实践中的变化:结果:只有一项标准有所改善,即护士参加查房的比例从 33% 提高到 100%(n=6):本研究显示了证据实施项目中的一些挑战,以及如何部分克服这些挑战。虽然结果只显示了一项标准的改进,但本文显示了如何利用审计来促进最佳实践,在本案例中,护士更多地参与了查房,改善了多学科小组的沟通,加强了护士对决策的参与,从而改善了患者护理。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A233。
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
Nutrition as therapy - the role of dietitian counseling: a best practice implementation project. Pain assessment and management in patients with dementia in Taiwan: a best practice implementation project. 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.
×
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