护士对将循证反馈纳入实践的角色和责任的认识:一项实施研究

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING Journal of Advanced Nursing Pub Date : 2025-01-26 DOI:10.1111/jan.16768
Christine Ossenberg, Vanessa N. Brunelli, Marion Mitchell, Amanda Henderson
{"title":"护士对将循证反馈纳入实践的角色和责任的认识:一项实施研究","authors":"Christine Ossenberg,&nbsp;Vanessa N. Brunelli,&nbsp;Marion Mitchell,&nbsp;Amanda Henderson","doi":"10.1111/jan.16768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the implementation process of a novel program focused on improving interactive (dialogic) feedback between clinicians and students during placement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Quantitative cross-sectional hybrid type 3 effectiveness–implementation study driven by a federated model of social learning theory and implementation theory.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>From June to November 2018, feedback approaches supported by socio-constructive learning theory and Normalisation Process Theory were enacted in four clinical units of a healthcare facility in southeast Queensland, Australia. The study involved 16 clinical instructors/supervisors, 94 bedside nurses, and 85 final-year nursing students. Engagement was evaluated using the Normalisation Measure Development survey. Situated learning encounters were constructed based on the needs of each group.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Survey results of the four Normalisation Process Theory constructs identified variable adoption by participant groups. Engagement in situated learning encounters that facilitate dialogic feedback was greatest in clinical instructors/supervisors, followed by students. Bedside registered nurses, while indicating they understood purposeful feedback behaviours, did not demonstrate them in practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The extent to which each group practiced dialogic feedback depended on their perceptions of their influence, whether they saw it as part of their role, and the effort and time required, regardless of the activity's importance, role statements, and codes of conduct.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implications for the Profession</h3>\n \n <p>Understanding the norms that shape communication, engagement, and nurses' role priorities is crucial for guiding practice and ongoing engagement with feedback.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Impact</h3>\n \n <p>The research provides valuable insights for leaders aiming to enhance the integration of evidence into practice. It guides leaders to understand that participants prioritise the reach, relevance, and resources of evidence over formal role descriptions, responsibilities, policies, and codes of conduct. This research encourages leaders to scrutinise existing beliefs, norms, and routines when implementing evidence-based practices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Reporting Method</h3>\n \n <p>Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) reporting guidelines were used.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> No Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>None.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":54897,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Nursing","volume":"81 11","pages":"7525-7540"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nurses' Perceptions of the Relevance of Their Role and Responsibilities for Adopting Evidence-Based Feedback Into Practice: An Implementation Study\",\"authors\":\"Christine Ossenberg,&nbsp;Vanessa N. Brunelli,&nbsp;Marion Mitchell,&nbsp;Amanda Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jan.16768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the implementation process of a novel program focused on improving interactive (dialogic) feedback between clinicians and students during placement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Quantitative cross-sectional hybrid type 3 effectiveness–implementation study driven by a federated model of social learning theory and implementation theory.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>From June to November 2018, feedback approaches supported by socio-constructive learning theory and Normalisation Process Theory were enacted in four clinical units of a healthcare facility in southeast Queensland, Australia. The study involved 16 clinical instructors/supervisors, 94 bedside nurses, and 85 final-year nursing students. Engagement was evaluated using the Normalisation Measure Development survey. Situated learning encounters were constructed based on the needs of each group.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Survey results of the four Normalisation Process Theory constructs identified variable adoption by participant groups. Engagement in situated learning encounters that facilitate dialogic feedback was greatest in clinical instructors/supervisors, followed by students. Bedside registered nurses, while indicating they understood purposeful feedback behaviours, did not demonstrate them in practice.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The extent to which each group practiced dialogic feedback depended on their perceptions of their influence, whether they saw it as part of their role, and the effort and time required, regardless of the activity's importance, role statements, and codes of conduct.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Implications for the Profession</h3>\\n \\n <p>Understanding the norms that shape communication, engagement, and nurses' role priorities is crucial for guiding practice and ongoing engagement with feedback.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Impact</h3>\\n \\n <p>The research provides valuable insights for leaders aiming to enhance the integration of evidence into practice. It guides leaders to understand that participants prioritise the reach, relevance, and resources of evidence over formal role descriptions, responsibilities, policies, and codes of conduct. This research encourages leaders to scrutinise existing beliefs, norms, and routines when implementing evidence-based practices.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Reporting Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) reporting guidelines were used.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> No Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>None.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54897,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Advanced Nursing\",\"volume\":\"81 11\",\"pages\":\"7525-7540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Advanced Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jan.16768\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jan.16768","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评估一项新计划的实施过程,该计划的重点是在实习期间改善临床医生和学生之间的互动(对话)反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Nurses' Perceptions of the Relevance of Their Role and Responsibilities for Adopting Evidence-Based Feedback Into Practice: An Implementation Study

Aims

To evaluate the implementation process of a novel program focused on improving interactive (dialogic) feedback between clinicians and students during placement.

Design

Quantitative cross-sectional hybrid type 3 effectiveness–implementation study driven by a federated model of social learning theory and implementation theory.

Methods

From June to November 2018, feedback approaches supported by socio-constructive learning theory and Normalisation Process Theory were enacted in four clinical units of a healthcare facility in southeast Queensland, Australia. The study involved 16 clinical instructors/supervisors, 94 bedside nurses, and 85 final-year nursing students. Engagement was evaluated using the Normalisation Measure Development survey. Situated learning encounters were constructed based on the needs of each group.

Results

Survey results of the four Normalisation Process Theory constructs identified variable adoption by participant groups. Engagement in situated learning encounters that facilitate dialogic feedback was greatest in clinical instructors/supervisors, followed by students. Bedside registered nurses, while indicating they understood purposeful feedback behaviours, did not demonstrate them in practice.

Conclusion

The extent to which each group practiced dialogic feedback depended on their perceptions of their influence, whether they saw it as part of their role, and the effort and time required, regardless of the activity's importance, role statements, and codes of conduct.

Implications for the Profession

Understanding the norms that shape communication, engagement, and nurses' role priorities is crucial for guiding practice and ongoing engagement with feedback.

Impact

The research provides valuable insights for leaders aiming to enhance the integration of evidence into practice. It guides leaders to understand that participants prioritise the reach, relevance, and resources of evidence over formal role descriptions, responsibilities, policies, and codes of conduct. This research encourages leaders to scrutinise existing beliefs, norms, and routines when implementing evidence-based practices.

Reporting Method

Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) reporting guidelines were used.

No Patient or Public Contribution

None.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.90%
发文量
369
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN) contributes to the advancement of evidence-based nursing, midwifery and healthcare by disseminating high quality research and scholarship of contemporary relevance and with potential to advance knowledge for practice, education, management or policy. All JAN papers are required to have a sound scientific, evidential, theoretical or philosophical base and to be critical, questioning and scholarly in approach. As an international journal, JAN promotes diversity of research and scholarship in terms of culture, paradigm and healthcare context. For JAN’s worldwide readership, authors are expected to make clear the wider international relevance of their work and to demonstrate sensitivity to cultural considerations and differences.
期刊最新文献
The Parent Support Team Programme: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of an Early Intervention-Focused Child and Family Health Nursing Programme. The Impact of Assisted Dying Legislation on Nursing Practice in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review. Prevalence and Types of Workplace Violence Against Clinical Nursing Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Thriving or Leaving? The Role of PERMA Being Associated With Thriving and Retention Among Early Career Nurses. Comment on "Mediating Effect of Job Burnout on the Relationship Between Organisational Support and Quiet Quitting in Nurses".
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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