Contributions to the literature
-
Evidence-based guidelines enhance the provision of care. However, trial-and-error-based approaches to implementation are costly and ineffective.
-
This review summarizes knowledge on contextual factors in the long-term care setting that influence implementation of evidence-based guidelines to facilitate more effective and sustainable uptake in practice.
-
By placing the findings of our qualitative evidence synthesis within the context of a behaviour change framework, our work provides theory-guided strategies to inform future translation of evidence into practice in long-term care homes.
Background
Description of the topic
Why is it important to do this review?
How this review might inform what is already known in this area
Objectives
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
Target behaviour
Participants
Setting
Search methods for identification of studies
Selection of studies
Data extraction
Assessing the methodological limitations of included studies
Data management, analysis, and synthesis
Definition | |
---|---|
COM-B construct | |
Physical capability | Physical skill, strength, or stamina |
Psychological capability | Knowledge or psychological skills, strength, or stamina to engage in the necessary mental processes |
Physical opportunity | Opportunity afforded by the environment involving time, resources, locations, cues, physical affordance |
Social opportunity | Opportunity afforded by the interpersonal influences, social cues and cultural norms that influence the way that we think about things |
Reflective motivation | Reflective processes involving plans (self-conscious intentions) and evaluations (beliefs about what is good and bad) |
Automatic motivation | Automatic processes involving emotional reactions, desires (wants and needs), impulses, inhibitions, drive states, and reflex responses |
Intervention function | |
Environmental restructuring | Changing the physical or social context |
Restrictions | Using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or to increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours) |
Education | Increasing knowledge or understanding |
Persuasion | Using communication to induce positive or negative feelings to stimulate action |
Incentivisation | Creating an expectation of reward |
Coercion | Creating an expectation of punishment or cost |
Training | Imparting skills |
Enablement | Increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability (beyond education and training) or opportunity (beyond environmental restructuring) |
Modeling | Provide an example for people to aspire to or imitate |
Assessing our confidence in the review findings
Summary of qualitative findings table and evidence profile
Review author reflexivity
Findings
Results of the search
Description of the studies
Study | Year | Country (Province, state, or region) | Study design | Study objectives | Data collection methods | Analysis | Guidelines and health topic examined | Behaviour change framework, model, or theory |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Phipps et al. [36] | 2019 | England (South East) | Qualitative study | To explore what factors impact the ability of clinicians to manage care home flu outbreaks according to national guidelines and highlight opportunities for change | Collected notes written (from discussions) during responses to outbreaks, presentations on influenza at stakeholder engagement events | Identified and matched codes to themes—capability, opportunity, and organizational factors from framework | National guidelines supporting antiviral use | Framework developed by Greenhalgh et al., capability, opportunity, and motivation |
Abraham et al. [37] | 2019 | Germany (Varied) | Process evaluation subcomponent of a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial | To systematically document the implementation process and describe barriers and facilitators | Structured interviews and focus groups | Not reported | IMPRINT—to reduce physical restraint use | None |
Villarosa et al. [38] | 2018 | Australia (New South Wales) | Exploratory qualitative study | To explore the perceptions of care staff towards the provision of oral health care following implementation of a new care model: (1) examine the perceptions of the care staff regarding oral health care practices; (2) ascertain the needs and recommendations of care staff in relation to improving the delivery of oral health care. | Focus group | Inductive thematic analysis | Better oral health in Residential Aged Care programme | None |
Huhtinen et al. [39] | 2018 | Australia (Sydney) | Mixed method | To identify the perceived barriers to the implementation of the Australian guidelines on influenza outbreak management with staff in an inner-city Sydney region | Telephone interview using a semi-structured questionnaire | Thematic analysis | National Guidelines for the Prevention, Control and Public Health Management of Influenza Outbreaks in Residential Care Facilities in Australia | None |
Nilsen et al. [40] | 2018 | Sweden (Southern region) | Qualitative study | To identify barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based palliative care in the nursing homes | Semi-structured interviews | Content analysis. Codes were compared with categories outlined in the Organizational Readiness for Change Framework | World Health Organization guidelines on palliative care | Organizational Readiness for Change |
DuBeau et al. [41] | 2007 | USA (Kansas) | Mixed method | To survey nursing home staff and state surveyors regarding attitudes about perceived and/or experienced barriers and challenges to implementing F315 compliance | Questionnaire survey with Likert type responses and open-ended questions | Inductive manifest and latent content analysis based on grounded theory | F315 tag: guidance for meeting compliance in managing and evaluating urinary incontinence and urinary catheters | None |
Birney et al. [42] | 2016 | Canada (Alberta) | Exploratory qualitative study | To understand how four LTC facilities in Alberta have implemented medication reviews for the Appropriate Use of Antipsychotic Initiative | Semi-structured interviews and observations | Thematic analysis | Alberta Guideline on the Appropriate Use of Antipsychotic Medications | None |
Fallon et al. [43] | 2006 | Australia (City of Toowoomba) | Quality improvement study | To identify barriers to implementation of evidence-based recommendations and strategies to overcome these barriers | Semi-structured focus group | Thematic analysis | Evidence-based recommendations for oral health | None |
Baert et al. [44] | 2016 | Belgium (Flanders) | Mixed method | To identify barriers as well as motivators for organizing physical activity in LTC homes according to administrators on the different levels of the socioecological model. A secondary goal was examining their knowledge of the guidelines regarding physical activity and to reveal potential motivators and barriers for the implementation of these guidelines | Questionnaire and interviews | Deductive qualitative content analysis (Interviews) | World Health Organization guidelines for physical activity in older adults | None |
Alamri et al. [45] | 2015 | Canada (Ontario) | Qualitative study | To identify potential barriers to evidence-based practices for osteoporosis and fracture prevention in LTC settings | Action plan worksheet completed by LTC staff in the control arm of an intervention study | Deductive and inductive thematic analysis | Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada | Theoretical Domains Framework |
Kaasalainen et al. [46] | 2014 | Canada (Ontario) | Exploratory, multiple-case study | What barriers and facilitators are encountered by the clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners in changing team practice related to implementing a pain protocol? | Diaries recording strategies, barriers, facilitators; participant observation and field notes by research assistant; interviews and focus groups | Thematic analysis | Interdisciplinary pain protocol by Kaasalainen et al. 2012 | None |
Vikstrom et al. [47] | 2015 | Sweden (Stockholm) | Implementation study | To outline the nursing home staff experiences during the first year of implementation of guidelines for care of people with dementia | Reflective seminars—detailed notes with experiential data relating to participant experiences in 4 discussions and written content/illustrations from posters | Inductive and deductive qualitative content analysis | Sweden's national evidence-based guidelines for care of people with dementia | None |
Strachan et al. [48] | 2014 | Canada (Ontario) | Descriptive qualitative study nested in phase 2 of a three-phase mixed methods protocol | To explore LTC nurses’ experiences in managing heart failure | Focus group | Manifest content analysis | Canadian Cardiovascular Society Heart Failure guidelines in LTC | None |
Lim et al. [49] | 2014 | Australia (Victoria) | Not reported | To explore the attitudes and perceptions of key healthcare providers towards antimicrobial stewardship interventions in Australian residential aged care facilities | Interviews and focus groups | Thematic analysis using the framework approach | International guidelines for infection control and prevention | None |
Dellefield et al. [50] | 2014 | USA (California) | Exploratory qualitative interview | To describe nurses’ perceptions of individual and organization-level factors influencing performance of pressure ulcer prevention care in 2 VHA Nursing Home Community Living Centers to help identify existing factors perceived as facilitators and barriers to delivering pressure ulcer prevention care | Semi-structured interviews | Content analysis | Evidence-based guidelines for prevention of pressure ulcers | None |
Berta et al. [28] | 2013 | Canada (Ontario) | Survey | To better understand how care protocols are implemented in LTC homes operating in Ontario, and to learn what processes, structural mechanisms, and knowledge sources are relevant to their implementation | Pen and paper survey | Mean score of importance | Clinical practice guidelines for either preventative skin care, wound/ulcer care, restraint use, management of incontinence, management of difficult behaviours, and antimicrobial resistance | Organizational learning theory |
Bamford et al. [51] | 2012 | England (Not reported) | Process evaluation | To explore facilitators and barriers to the use of nutrition guidelines in residential care homes | Semi-structured interviews, informal discussions, nonparticipant observation | Thematic analysis, themes then mapped onto the Normalization Process Framework | UK Food Standards Agency nutrient and food-based guidance for older people in residential care | Normalization Process Theory |
Kaasalainen et al. [52] | 2012 | Canada (Ontario) | Mixed method | To evaluate dissemination strategies in improving clinical practice behaviours (e.g., documentation of pain assessments, use of pain medications and non-pharmacological interventions) among health care team members, and the effectiveness of the pain protocol in reducing pain in LTC residents | Focus group and interviews | Thematic content analysis | The American Medical Directors’ Association and American Geriatrics Society best practice guidelines for pain | None |
Verkaik et al. [53] | 2011 | Netherlands (Not reported) | Multiple case study | Which factors facilitate or inhibit successful introduction of the guideline in psychogeriatric nursing home wards? Which factors facilitate or inhibit the successful application of the guideline by CNAs in their support of residents with comorbid depression? | Semi-structured interviews, memos, evaluation forms, activity plan forms, training reports observations | Qualitative data analysis | Depression in Dementia | None |
Berta et al. [54] | 2010 | Canada (Ontario) | Multiple case study | To explore the translational process that emerges within Ontario long-term care homes with the adoption and implementation of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines | Semi-structured interviews, focus groups | Template analysis via constant comparative analysis | Clinical practice guidelines for either preventative skin care, wound/ulcer care, restraint use, management of incontinence, management of difficult behaviours, and antimicrobial resistance | Organizational learning theory |
McConigley et al. [55] | 2008 | Australia (Perth) | Qualitative study | Identify barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation and strengths that could assist in the implementation process | Focus groups and interviews | Thematic analysis | Australian Pain Society for residents in residential aged care facilities | None |
Cheek et al. [56] | 2004 | Australia (South) | Descriptive/exploratory multimethod multilayered design | To investigate the factors that influence the implementation of best practice guidelines with respect to quality use of medicines in residential aged care facilities | Critical Incident Technique, focus groups, and nominal groups | Not reported | Nursing Guidelines for Medication Management in Nursing Homes and Hostels, Guidelines for Medical Care of Older Persons in Nursing Homes and Hostels, Best Practice Model for the Supply of Pharmacy Services to Residential Care Facilities | None |
Hilton et al. [57] | 2016 | Australia (not reported) | Mixed method | To determine the views and experiences of nurses and care staff in residential care settings in relation to (a) implementing best practice oral care guidelines with residents of long-term care setting who have chronic disabling health conditions and (b) the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of common oral care practices included in clinical guidelines | Online survey and focus group | Thematic content analysis | Several oral care guidelines | None |
Lau et al. [58] | 2007 | USA (Michigan) | Not reported | To examine the importance of work-related factors such as interprofessional communication, participation in decision making, and relationships among clinical staff members, for the adoption of guidelines in nursing homes | Semi-structured interviews | Thematic analysis | Federal guidelines on medication delivery CMS-mandated drug regimen review quality indicators, modified Beers criteria, and other practice guidelines, such as those issued by the American Medical Directors Association | None |
Buss et al. [59] | 2004 | Netherlands (Limburg, Noord-Brabant) | Qualitative study | To elucidate the views and beliefs of health care workers (especially enrolled nurses) in Dutch nursing homes about pressure ulcer prevention and about issues related with pressure ulcer prevention | Interviews, written pressure prevention protocols | Thematic analysis | Dutch National Guidelines for Pressure Ulcer Prevention | None |
Van der Maaden et al. [60] | 2017 | Netherlands (Not reported) | Process evaluation | To provide further understanding on the lack on an intervention effect in the cluster randomized trial. | Observation, interviews, survey | Content analysis | Practice guidelines for optimal symptom relief of pneumonia for residents with dementia | None |
Kong et al. [61] | 2021 | South Korea (Seoul Special City, Gtyeonggi-do, Incheon Metropolitan City, Gangwon-do) | Qualitative descriptive study | To describe nursing home staff's perceptions of the barriers and needs in implementing care for people with dementia in Korean nursing homes | Semi-structured interviews | Qualitative content analysis | Person-centred dementia care | None |
Jeong et al. [62] | 2020 | South Korea (Not reported) | Mixed methods study | To identify the barriers to implementation of a CPG perceived by healthcare professionals | Semi-structured interviews | Thematic analysis | Clinical practice guidelines for management of delirium | None |
Eldh et al. [63] | 2020 | England, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden (Not reported) | Cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded realist evaluation | To demonstrate the added and unique contribution observations made in comparison with survey and stakeholder interviews in a mixed method implementation study | Non-participant observations, survey, and interviews | Content analysis | Continence Management Guidelines | Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework |
Cossette et al. [64] | 2020 | Canada (Quebec) | Prospective closed cohort supplemented by a development evaluation | To identify barriers and enablers in relation to the long-term integration of the OPUS-AP strategy in routine care | Semi-structured interviews | Semi-inductive thematic analysis | Appropriate use of anti-psychotics for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia | None |
Surr et al. [65] | 2020 | England (West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire, South London) | Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with a process evaluation | To examine the perceived barriers to and facilitators of intervention implementation, the mechanisms of impact and the perceived impacts from the perspective of mappers, expert mappers, managers, staff, residents and relatives | Semi-structured interviews | Framework analysis | Dementia Care Mapping | None |
Desveaux et al. [66] | 2019 | Canada (Ontario) | Qualitative process evaluation | To examine whether, how, and why an academic detailing intervention could improve evidence uptake and (2) identify perceived changes that occurred to inform outcomes appropriate for quantitative evaluation. | Semi-structured interviews | Inductive approach within the framework method | Fall prevention guideline | None |
Walker [67] | 2019 | Australia (Not reported) | Process evaluation | To report on process outcomes of the ViDAus study evaluating the feasibility of this multifaceted, interdisciplinary knowledge translation intervention for the implementation of vitamin D supplement use in residential aged care facilities | Unclear | Not reported | Vitamin D supplementation guidelines | Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework |
Individual participant characteristics | LTC home characteristics | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | Year | Profession | Number | Age Mean (SD) | Sex % female | Sampling technique | Response rate | n of homes | n of residents in home | Ownership | Rurality |
Phipps et al. [36] | 2019 | Partners from health protection, primary care, pharmacy, local authority, National Health Service | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Abraham et al. [37] | 2019 | Nursing home leaders, nominated key nurses, randomly selected nursing staff, relatives, legal guardians, home advisory board | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 120 | Varied | NR | NR |
Villarosa et al. [38] | 2018 | Residential aged care staff | 12 | 38 (15.5) | 91.7% | Purposeful | NR | 2 | NR | Rural | Community-owned, not-for-profit |
Huhtinen et al. [39] | 2018 | Registered nurses, director of nursing, facility manager, chief executive officer | 28 | NR | NR | Convenience | 46% | 28 | Varied (41 to > 100 residents) | Urban | 61% non-profit, 39% privately owned |
Nilsen et al. [40] | 2018 | Nursing home managers | 22 | 54 (SD not reported) | 100% | Convenience | 100% | 22 | Varied (32 to 110 staff) | NR | NR |
DuBeau et al. [41] | 2007 | Nursing home staff (administrator, nursing director, nursing assistants, nurse practitioners, nursing consultants, medical staff) and surveyors | 500 | NR | NR | Convenience | 85% | NR | 68.6% were < 100 residents | 58% rural | 50% for profit, 37% not for profit, 12% government run |
Birney et al. [42] | 2016 | Registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, health care aides, pharmacists, and facility managers/directors, care manager, best practice lead | 18 | NR | NR | Purposeful | NR | 4 | 50–221 residents | 75% urban | 75% public |
Fallon et al. [43] | 2016 | Facility staff and managers | NR | NR | NR | Convenience | NR | 2 | 40–71 resident | Urban | Publicly funded |
Baert et al. [44] | 2016 | LTC home administrators | Qual = 24 Quant = 127 | Qual = males 49 (7), females 43 (11) Quant = males 50 (7), females 44 (8) | Qual = 46% Quant = 47% | Multistage stratified random | Qual—not reported; Quant—127/761 | NR | NR | Urban and rural | Public and private |
Alamri et al. [45] | 2015 | Medical director, director of care, administrator, consultant pharmacist, food services director, and other medical, nursing, and rehabilitation representatives | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 12 | Mean 114 (SD 57.0) residents | Urban and rural | 92% for profit |
Kaasalainen et al. [46] | 2014 | Clinical nursing specialist and nursing practitioners | 28 | NR | 82% | Purposeful | NR | 2 | 110–130 residents | NR | 50% for profit |
Vikstrom et al. [47] | 2015 | Nurse aides, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, managers | 200 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 1 | 200 residents | Suburban | NR |
Strachan et al. [48] | 2014 | Registered nurses, registered practical nurses, nurse practitioners | 33 | NR | NR | Convenience | NR | 4 | 96–251 residents | Both | Public and private, profit and not for profit |
Lim et al. [49] | 2014 | Registered nurses, general practitioners, pharmacists | 61 | Nurses—70.3% (> 40) GPs—10% (> 40) Pharmacists—66.7% (> 40) | 78.7% | Purposive and snowball | NR | 12 | NR | NR | NR |
Dellefield et al. [50] | 2014 | Registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses, nurses’ assistants | 16 | 50 (SD not reported) | 88% | Purposeful stratified | 64% | 2 | NR | NR | NR |
Berta et al. [28] | 2013 | Directors of care | 392 | NR | NR | Purposeful | 72% | 392 | 33% large (> 150 residents) | 76% urban | 43% chain owned, 19% not for profit |
Bamford et al. [51] | 2012 | Cooks, managers, care staff | 43 | NR | NR | Maximum variation purposeful | NR | 5 | 25–40 residents | Small towns and villages | Publicly funded |
Kaasalainen et al. [52] | 2012 | Licensed nurses, personal support workers, administrator, directors of care, pharmacist, advanced practice nurse, physiotherapist | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 4 | NR | NR | NR |
Verkaik et al. [53] | 2011 | Certified nursing assistants | 20 | NR | NR | Purposeful | 20/109 | 9 | NR | NR | NR |
Berta et al. [54] | 2010 | Senior clinical, administrator, direct care staff | 28 | NR | NR | Stratified purposeful | NR | 7 | NR | NR | NR |
McConigley et al. [55] | 2008 | Nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, management staff, general practitioners | 53 | 44 (8.5) | 88% | Unclear | 65% | 5 | 60-245 residents | NR | NR |
Cheek et al. [56] | 2004 | Registered nurse, enrolled nurse, manager, direct care worker, pharmacist, general practitioner, physiotherapist, speech therapist | 33 | NR | NR | Purposeful | NR | 12 | NR | NR | NR |
Hilton et al. [57] | 2016 | Enrolled nurses | 51 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 1 | NR | NR | NR |
Lau et al. [58] | 2007 | physicians, registered nurses, nurses’ aides, pharmacists | 17 | NR | NR | Purposeful | 100% | 4 | NR | NR | NR |
Buss et al. [59] | 2004 | Enrolled nurses, team leaders, head nurses, staff nurses, and physicians | 18 | NR | NR | Purposeful | 100% | 5 | NR | NR | NR |
Van der Maaden et al. [60] | 2017 | Physicians | 14 interviews, 25 survey | Interviews: 47 years; survey: 21 years | 71.4% interviews, 84% survey | Purposeful | NR | 16 | Mean 106 residents (range 30–189) | NR | NR |
Kong et al. [61] | 2020 | Nurses, nursing assistants, care workers | 24 | 40–69 years | 100% | Convenience | 54.5% | 6 | Medium or large (61–296) | Urban | 4 private, 2 public |
Jeong et al. [62] | 2020 | Managers, registered nurses, health assistants | 10 | NR | 100% | Convenience | NR | 2 | NR | NR | NR |
Eldh et al. [63] | 2020 | LTC staff | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 24 | NR | NR | NR |
Cossette et al. [64] | 2019 | Nurses, manager, staff | 10 | NR | NR | Purposive | NR | 5 | NR | NR | NR |
Surr et al. [65] | 2020 | Managers, mappers, other members of staff | 67 | NR | NR | Purposive | NR | 18 | Mix of medium and large | Mix of urban and rural | NR |
Desveaux et al. [66] | 2019 | Administrative leaders, physicians, pharmacists, and direct care providers | 29 | NR | 75.9% | Purposive | NR | 13 | NR | NR | NR |
Walker [67] | 2019 | Key contact person from each facility—site manager, deputy manager, director or deputy director of nursing | NR | NR | NR | Convenience | NR | 41 | NR | NR | NR |
Methodological limitations of the studies
Confidence in the review findings
Review findings
Summary of review finding | Contributing articles | Frequency | CERQual Assessment of confidence in the evidence | Explanation of CERQual assessment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Barriers | Time constraints and inadequate staffing: lack of time or personnel to carry out tasks as indicated by the guideline | 32 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | |
Knowledge gaps: inadequate training, expertise, or awareness of the targeted condition or guideline recommendations | 26 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Cost and lack of resources: inadequate financial and other resources (e.g., equipment) to carry out tasks as indicated by the guideline | 25 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Lack of teamwork: lack of cooperation and role coordination among the resident’s circle of care, including the LTC staff, family members, clinicians, and specialized health professionals | 22 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Lack of organizational support: lack of impetus for guideline implementation from LTC home management. | 20 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Resident complexity: complex comorbidities of LTC residents | 19 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Compromised communication and information flow: inadequate communication of relevant information between the resident, their family, staff, and/or allied health professions | 15 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Staff turnover: frequent change in staff | 15 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Belief against the guideline: distrust of the guideline’s recommendations and/or of its evidence base | 15 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Conflict with clinical autonomy: guideline recommendations conflict with health professional’s independence for clinical judgement | 13 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Emotional responses to work and confidence in skills: staff having lack of interest, negative attitude towards work, or low confidence in their ability to carry out guideline recommendation | 12 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Competing priorities: staff burdened with too many tasks to place guideline adherence at high priority | 12 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Reluctance to change: comfort with existing behaviour and resistance to developing new ones. | 11 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Inconsistent practices: variations in practice between different health professionals in the LTC homes. | 8 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Moral distress: guideline conflicts with resident/staff values or generate perception that the guideline will cause negative outcomes. | 8 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Guideline complexity and associated workload: guideline creates additional workload to the staff due to the nature of its recommendations or complexity to process and understand the tasks | 8 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Healthcare system structure: inability to follow the guidelines due to the organizational structure of the healthcare system | 5 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Simultaneous changes or change fatigue: guideline introduces too many changes at once or staff are burdened with too many changes | 4 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding adequacy, minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Limited physical environment: lack of appropriate physical infrastructure to carry out guideline recommendations | 4 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations and adequacy, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Conflicting guidelines: guideline conflicts with another guideline on the same topic or current practice in the LTC homes | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding adequacy, minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | |||
Impractical guideline: guideline is not practical to the LTC setting | 2 | High confidence, moderate confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations and adequacy, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Reactive approach: responding to problems once they occur rather than focusing on prevention | 2 | Moderate confidence, high confidence | Moderate concerns regarding adequacy, minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Lack of noticeable improvement from guideline implementation | 2 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding adequacy, minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Leadership and champions: LTC managers and leaders support the guideline implementation. Experienced champions are present to actively promote change and provide support to organizational members | 20 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources: designing strategies, protocols, and tools that promote guideline uptake and minimize burden on the LTC system | 19 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Facilitators | Support and coordination among staff: collaborative decision-making, clear role coordination, and encouragement among LTC staff | 18 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | |
Adequate knowledge and education: continuous education and training specific to the LTC context to ensure that the care team have the knowledge and skills to carry out guideline interventions | 16 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Involving residents and families: engaging residents and families in decision-making and education | 13 | High confidence, high confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Positive emotional responses to work and the intervention: the resident’s care team value the intervention and demonstrate interest in developing care | 13 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Adequate services, resources, and time: staff have enough resources and time to carry out guideline interventions | 12 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Noticeable outcomes from guideline implementation: positive outcomes following guideline usage | 12 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, minor concerns regarding adequacy, and no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Good communication and information flow: information regarding new protocols or resident assessment is communicated promptly and regularly to and among the resident’s care team | 7 | Moderate confidence | Moderate concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance | ||
Conviction that the guideline is evidence-based and will demonstrate improvement: the resident’s care team believe that the guideline is evidence-based and that guideline interventions will lead to positive outcomes | 5 | Low confidence | Serious concerns regarding adequacy, minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence and relevance | ||
Innovative environmental modifications: innovative physical modification in the physical environment that promotes guideline usage | 5 | High confidence | Minor concerns regarding methodological limitations, no or very minor concerns regarding coherence, adequacy, and relevance |
COM-B construct | Theme | Behaviour Change Wheel linked potential intervention functions | |
---|---|---|---|
Physical capability: physical skill, strength, or stamina | None | None | |
Psychological capability: knowledge or psychological skills, strength or stamina to engage in the necessary mental processes | Barriers | Knowledge gaps | Education Training Environmental restructuring Modelling Enablement |
Facilitators | Adequate knowledge and education | ||
Physical opportunity: opportunity afforded by the environment involving time, resources, locations, cues, physical affordance | Time constraints and inadequate staffing | Training Restriction Environmental restructuring Enablement | |
Barriers | Cost and lack of resources | ||
Resident complexity | |||
Compromised communication and information flow | |||
Staff turnover | |||
Competing priorities | |||
Guideline complexity and associated workload | |||
Healthcare system structure | |||
Limited physical environment | |||
Conflicting guidelines | |||
Impractical guideline | |||
Facilitators | Well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources | ||
Adequate services, resources, and time | |||
Innovative environmental modifications | |||
Social opportunity: opportunity afforded by the interpersonal influences, social cues and cultural norms that influence the way that we think about things | Barriers | Lack of teamwork | Restriction Environmental restructuring Modelling Enablement |
Lack of organizational support | |||
Inconsistent practices | |||
Reactive approach | |||
Facilitators | Leadership and champions | ||
Support and coordination among staff | |||
Involving residents and families | |||
Good communication and information flow | |||
Reflective motivation: reflective processes involving plans (self-conscious intentions) and evaluations (beliefs about what is good and bad) | Barriers | Conflict with clinical autonomy | Education Persuasion Modelling Enablement Incentivisation Coercion |
Belief against the guideline | |||
Moral distress Lack of noticeable outcomes from guideline implementation | |||
Facilitators | Noticeable outcomes from guideline implementation | ||
Conviction that the guideline is evidence-based and will demonstrate improvement | |||
Automatic motivation: automatic processes involving emotional reactions, desires (wants and needs), impulses, inhibitions, drive states and reflex responses | Barriers | Reluctance to change | Training Incentivisation Coercion Environmental restructuring Persuasion Modelling Enablement |
Emotional responses to work and confidence in skills | |||
Simultaneous changes or change fatigue | |||
Facilitators | Positive emotional responses to work and the intervention |