Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: Results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project)
Authors: Bracher, M., Steward, K., Wallis, K., May, C.R., Aburrow, A. and Murphy, J.
Journal: BMJ Open
Volume: 9
Issue: 8
eISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025966
Abstract:Objectives To evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care. Design Prospective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures. Setting and participants Community teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys. Main outcome measures NoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes. Methods Data prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0 - survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1 - follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory. Results High support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support. Conclusion Greater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32674/
Source: Scopus
Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project).
Authors: Bracher, M., Steward, K., Wallis, K., May, C.R., Aburrow, A. and Murphy, J.
Journal: BMJ Open
Volume: 9
Issue: 8
Pages: e025966
eISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025966
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care. DESIGN: Prospective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes. METHODS: Data prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0-survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1-follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory. RESULTS: High support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support. CONCLUSION: Greater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32674/
Source: PubMed
Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the <i>Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People</i> (INSCCOPe) project).
Authors: Bracher, M., Steward, K., Wallis, K., May, C.R., Aburrow, A. and Murphy, J.
Journal: BMJ open
Volume: 9
Issue: 8
Pages: e025966
eISSN: 2044-6055
ISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025966
Abstract:Objectives
To evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care.Design
Prospective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures.Setting and participants
Community teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys.Main outcome measures
NoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes.Methods
Data prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0-survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1-follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory.Results
High support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support.Conclusion
Greater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions.https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32674/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Implementing professional behaviour change in teams under pressure: results from phase one of a prospective process evaluation (the Implementing Nutrition Screening in Community Care for Older People (INSCCOPe) project).
Authors: Bracher, M., Steward, K., Wallis, K., May, C.R., Aburrow, A. and Murphy, J.
Journal: BMJ Open
Volume: 9
Issue: 8
ISSN: 2044-6055
Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of a new procedure for screening and treatment of malnutrition for older people in community settings and to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation as a routine aspect of care. DESIGN: Prospective process evaluation using mixed methods with pre/post-implementation measures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community teams (nursing and allied health professionals) within a UK National Health Service Community Trust. 73 participants were recruited, of which 32 completed both pre-implemetation and post-implementation surveys. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NoMAD survey for pre-post-intervention measures; telephone interviews exploring participant experiences and wider organisational/contextual processes. METHODS: Data prior to implementation of training, baseline (T0-survey and telephone interview) and 2 months following training (T1-follow-up survey). Quantitative data described using frequency tables reporting team type, healthcare provider role group and total study sample; analysis using Wilcoxon rank-sum (subgroup comparison) and Wilcoxon signed-rank (within-group observation point comparison) tests. Qualitative interview data (audio and transcription) analysed through directed content analysis using normalisation process theory. RESULTS: High support for nutrition screening and treatment indicated by participants. Concerns expressed around logistical, organisational and specialist dietetic support. Pre-post-training measures indicated a positive impact of training on knowledge of the new procedure; however, most implementation measures saw no significant changes between time points or between subgroups (training participants vs non-participants). Implementation barriers included the following: high levels of training non-completion; vulnerability to attrition of trained staff; lack of monitoring of post-intervention compliance and lack of access to dietetic support. CONCLUSION: Greater support necessary to support implementation in relation to monitoring of training completion, and organisational support for nutrition screening and treatment activity. Recommended changes to implementation design are as follows: appointment of a key person to support and monitor procedure compliance; adoption of training as an e-learning module within the existing organisational platform to increase participation in changeable working conditions.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32674/
Source: BURO EPrints