COVID-19 在长期护理中使用 CARD(舒适询问放松分心)系统进行疫苗接种:实施驱动因素的混合方法研究。

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur Pub Date : 2022-10-19 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1080/24740527.2022.2115880
Anna Taddio, Katherine S McGilton, Nancy Zheng, Lydia Yeung, Benoit Lafleur, Jollee S T Fung, Noni E MacDonald, Melissa K Andrew, Chris P Verschoor
{"title":"COVID-19 在长期护理中使用 CARD(舒适询问放松分心)系统进行疫苗接种:实施驱动因素的混合方法研究。","authors":"Anna Taddio, Katherine S McGilton, Nancy Zheng, Lydia Yeung, Benoit Lafleur, Jollee S T Fung, Noni E MacDonald, Melissa K Andrew, Chris P Verschoor","doi":"10.1080/24740527.2022.2115880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>CARD (comfort, ask, relax, distract) is a vaccine delivery framework that includes interventions to improve the patient's experience. CARD has not been previously implemented in long-term care (LTC) settings. This study evaluated drivers to implementation for COVID-19 vaccinations in an LTC facility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Postimplementation interpretive evaluation including qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys with eight participants. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for analysis. Adverse reactions to vaccinations and CARD interventions, including local reactogenicity and systemic reactions, were abstracted from medical charts of residents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight CFIR constructs emerged. Staff perceived CARD was complex because it added steps to vaccination delivery. Motivated to meet residents' needs, a receptive implementation climate of support among staff led to using strategies within CARD, such as administering topical anesthetics and omitting alcohol skin antisepsis prior to injections. Having an effective network like the residents council positively influenced implementation by allowing residents to voice their opinions. Facilitators to implementation included staff knowledge and beliefs and staff's commitment to their organization, which was focused on person-centered care. Barriers included lack of available resources (inadequate staffing), insufficient communication between management and staff and lack of awareness of CARD, and external policies not aligned with CARD. Chart reviews conducted for 93 vaccinated residents corroborated perceptions of vaccination and CARD intervention safety, revealing a low rate of local and systemic adverse reactions and no cases of skin infection.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We identified positive and negative implementation drivers. Future research is recommended to expand the strategies employed and involve residents more directly.</p>","PeriodicalId":53214,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3b/b3/UCJP_6_2115880.PMC9586631.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID-19 Vaccination Delivery in Long-Term-Care using the CARD (Comfort Ask Relax Distract) System: Mixed Methods study of Implementation Drivers.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Taddio, Katherine S McGilton, Nancy Zheng, Lydia Yeung, Benoit Lafleur, Jollee S T Fung, Noni E MacDonald, Melissa K Andrew, Chris P Verschoor\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24740527.2022.2115880\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>CARD (comfort, ask, relax, distract) is a vaccine delivery framework that includes interventions to improve the patient's experience. CARD has not been previously implemented in long-term care (LTC) settings. This study evaluated drivers to implementation for COVID-19 vaccinations in an LTC facility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Postimplementation interpretive evaluation including qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys with eight participants. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for analysis. Adverse reactions to vaccinations and CARD interventions, including local reactogenicity and systemic reactions, were abstracted from medical charts of residents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight CFIR constructs emerged. Staff perceived CARD was complex because it added steps to vaccination delivery. Motivated to meet residents' needs, a receptive implementation climate of support among staff led to using strategies within CARD, such as administering topical anesthetics and omitting alcohol skin antisepsis prior to injections. Having an effective network like the residents council positively influenced implementation by allowing residents to voice their opinions. Facilitators to implementation included staff knowledge and beliefs and staff's commitment to their organization, which was focused on person-centered care. Barriers included lack of available resources (inadequate staffing), insufficient communication between management and staff and lack of awareness of CARD, and external policies not aligned with CARD. Chart reviews conducted for 93 vaccinated residents corroborated perceptions of vaccination and CARD intervention safety, revealing a low rate of local and systemic adverse reactions and no cases of skin infection.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We identified positive and negative implementation drivers. Future research is recommended to expand the strategies employed and involve residents more directly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3b/b3/UCJP_6_2115880.PMC9586631.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2022.2115880\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2022.2115880","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:CARD(安慰、询问、放松、转移注意力)是一种疫苗接种框架,其中包括改善患者体验的干预措施。CARD 以前从未在长期护理(LTC)机构中实施过。本研究评估了在 LTC 机构中实施 COVID-19 疫苗接种的驱动因素:方法:实施后的解释性评估,包括对 8 名参与者进行定性访谈和定量调查。采用实施研究综合框架(CFIR)进行分析。接种疫苗和 CARD 干预措施引起的不良反应,包括局部反应性和全身反应,均摘自住院患者的病历:结果:出现了八个 CFIR 结构。工作人员认为 CARD 很复杂,因为它增加了疫苗接种的步骤。出于满足居民需求的动机,工作人员在实施过程中乐于接受支持的氛围促使他们采用了 CARD 中的策略,例如在注射前使用局部麻醉剂和省略酒精皮肤消毒。居民委员会等有效网络通过让居民发表意见,对实施工作产生了积极影响。促进实施的因素包括员工的知识和信念,以及员工对其组织的承诺,即注重以人为本的护理。障碍包括缺乏可用资源(人手不足)、管理层与员工之间沟通不足、缺乏对 CARD 的认识以及外部政策与 CARD 不一致。对 93 名接种过疫苗的居民进行的病历审查证实了接种疫苗和 CARD 干预安全性的看法,显示局部和全身不良反应发生率较低,没有皮肤感染病例:讨论:我们发现了积极和消极的实施驱动因素。讨论:我们发现了积极和消极的实施驱动因素,建议今后的研究扩大所采用的策略,并让居民更直接地参与进来。
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
COVID-19 Vaccination Delivery in Long-Term-Care using the CARD (Comfort Ask Relax Distract) System: Mixed Methods study of Implementation Drivers.

Objectives: CARD (comfort, ask, relax, distract) is a vaccine delivery framework that includes interventions to improve the patient's experience. CARD has not been previously implemented in long-term care (LTC) settings. This study evaluated drivers to implementation for COVID-19 vaccinations in an LTC facility.

Methods: Postimplementation interpretive evaluation including qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys with eight participants. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for analysis. Adverse reactions to vaccinations and CARD interventions, including local reactogenicity and systemic reactions, were abstracted from medical charts of residents.

Results: Eight CFIR constructs emerged. Staff perceived CARD was complex because it added steps to vaccination delivery. Motivated to meet residents' needs, a receptive implementation climate of support among staff led to using strategies within CARD, such as administering topical anesthetics and omitting alcohol skin antisepsis prior to injections. Having an effective network like the residents council positively influenced implementation by allowing residents to voice their opinions. Facilitators to implementation included staff knowledge and beliefs and staff's commitment to their organization, which was focused on person-centered care. Barriers included lack of available resources (inadequate staffing), insufficient communication between management and staff and lack of awareness of CARD, and external policies not aligned with CARD. Chart reviews conducted for 93 vaccinated residents corroborated perceptions of vaccination and CARD intervention safety, revealing a low rate of local and systemic adverse reactions and no cases of skin infection.

Discussion: We identified positive and negative implementation drivers. Future research is recommended to expand the strategies employed and involve residents more directly.

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
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
期刊最新文献
Assessing Quality of Referrals to a Community-Based Chronic Pain Clinic. The Influence of Loneliness on Pain Outcomes for Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Chronic pain experiences of immigrant Indian women in Canada: A photovoice exploration. [Enhancing Chronic Pain Management: Exploring the Essential Contribution of Primary Care Nurses]. Randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal mobile application for the treatment of chronic pain.
×
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