PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gill Harvey

Publications and source records attributed to Gill Harvey.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Relationship between quality of care, staffing levels, skill mix and nurse autonomy: literature review.

AIMS: This paper reports a literature review exploring the relationship between quality of care and selected organizational variables through a consideration of what is meant by perceptions of quality, whose perceptions are accorded prominence, and whether changes in staffing, skill mix and autonomy affect perceptions of quality. BACKGROUND: Three basic ideas underpin this literature review: the growing focus on quality improvement in health care, concerns about the quality of care, and the move towards patient involvement and consultation. Of particular interest is the way in which changes in nurse staffing, skill mix and autonomy may affect the delivery of quality patient care. METHODS: A search was conducted using the CINAHL, Medline and Embase databases. Key words used were quality of health care; quality of nursing care; nurse; patient; skill mix; nurse-patient ratio; outcomes; adverse health care events and autonomy. The objective was to draw together a diverse collection of literature related to the field of health care quality. Papers were included for their relevance to the field of enquiry. The original search was conducted in 2003 and updated in 2004. FINDINGS: Quality of care is a complex, multi-dimensional concept which presents researchers with a challenge when attempting to evaluate it. Traditional nursing assessment tools have fallen out of use, partly because they have failed to provide opportunities to engage with and access the views of patients or nurses. There is also evidence that patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality is compromised on a number of fronts. There is conflicting information on how nurses and patients think about quality. Research looking at the relationship between the selected organizational variables and perceptions of quality also suffers from a number of limitations. We argue that there is a requirement for more patient-centred research exploring perceptions of quality and differences in nurse staffing, skill mix and autonomy.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions.

Evidence-based policy is a dominant theme in contemporary public services but the practical realities and challenges involved in using evidence in policy-making are formidable. Part of the problem is one of complexity. In health services and other public services, we are dealing with complex social interventions which act on complex social systems--things like league tables, performance measures, regulation and inspection, or funding reforms. These are not 'magic bullets' which will always hit their target, but programmes whose effects are crucially dependent on context and implementation. Traditional methods of review focus on measuring and reporting on programme effectiveness, often find that the evidence is mixed or conflicting, and provide little or no clue as to why the intervention worked or did not work when applied in different contexts or circumstances, deployed by different stakeholders, or used for different purposes. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging 'realist' approach to evaluation. It provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how. The first step is to make explicit the programme theory (or theories)--the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is meant to work and what impacts it is expected to have. We then look for empirical evidence to populate this theoretical framework, supporting, contradicting or modifying the programme theories as it goes. The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. The aim is to enable decision-makers to reach a deeper understanding of the intervention and how it can be made to work most effectively. Realist review does not provide simple answers to complex questions. It will not tell policy-makers or managers whether something works or not, but will provide the policy and practice community with the kind of rich, detailed and highly practical understanding of complex social interventions which is likely to be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes at a national, regional or local level.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2004

What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice?

BACKGROUND: Considerable financial and philosophical effort has been expended on the evidence-based practice agenda. Whilst few would disagree with the notion of delivering care based on information about what works, there remain significant challenges about what evidence is, and thus how practitioners use it in decision-making in the reality of clinical practice. AIM: This paper continues the debate about the nature of evidence and argues for the use of a broader evidence base in the implementation of patient-centred care. DISCUSSION: Against a background of financial constraints, risk reduction, increased managerialism research evidence, and more specifically research about effectiveness, have assumed pre-eminence. However, the practice of effective nursing, which is mediated through the contact and relationship between individual practitioner and patient, can only be achieved by using several sources of evidence. This paper outlines the potential contribution of four types of evidence in the delivery of care, namely research, clinical experience, patient experience and information from the local context. Fundamentally, drawing on these four sources of evidence will require the bringing together of two approaches to care: the external, scientific and the internal, intuitive. CONCLUSION: Having described the characteristics of a broader evidence base for practice, the challenge remains to ensure that each is as robust as possible, and that they are melded coherently and sensibly in the real time of practice. Some of the ideas presented in this paper challenge more traditional approaches to evidence-based practice. The delivery of effective, evidence-based patient-centred care will only be realized when a broader definition of what counts as evidence is embraced.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2004

An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of implementing evidence-based practice are complex and varied. Against this background a framework has been developed to represent the multiple factors that may influence the implementation of evidence into practice. It is proposed that successful implementation is dependent upon the nature of the evidence being used, the quality of context, and, the type of facilitation required to enable the change process. This study sets out to scrutinize the elements of the framework through empirical enquiry. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to address the following questions: * What factors do practitioners identify as the most important in enabling implementation of evidence into practice? * What are the factors practitioners identify that mediate the implementation of evidence into practice? * Do the concepts of evidence, context and facilitation constitute the key elements of a framework for getting evidence into practice? DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: Exploratory focus groups (n = 2) were conducted to inform the development of an interview guide. This was used with individual key informants in case study sites. Phase 2: Two sites with on-going or recent implementation projects were studied. Within sites semi-structured interviews were conducted (n = 17). RESULTS: A number of key issues in relation to the implementation of evidence into practice emerged including: the nature and role of evidence, relevance and fit with organizational and practice issues, multi-professional relationships and collaboration, role of the project lead and resources. CONCLUSIONS: The results are discussed with reference to the wider literature and in relation to the on-going development of the framework. Crucially the growing body of evidence reveals that a focus on individual approaches to implementing evidence-based practice, such as skilling-up practitioners to appraise research evidence, will be ineffective by themselves. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Key elements that require attention in implementing evidence into practice are presented and may provide a useful checklist for future implementation and evaluation projects.

Diffusion of Innovation↗
PubMed2002

Getting evidence into practice: the role and function of facilitation.

AIM OF PAPER: This paper presents the findings of a concept analysis of facilitation in relation to successful implementation of evidence into practice. BACKGROUND: In 1998, we presented a conceptual framework that represented the interplay and interdependence of the many factors influencing the uptake of evidence into practice. One of the three elements of the framework was facilitation, alongside the nature of evidence and context. It was proposed that facilitators had a key role in helping individuals and teams understand what they needed to change and how they needed to change it. As part of the on-going development and refinement of the framework, the elements within it have undergone a concept analysis in order to provide theoretical and conceptual clarity. METHODS: The concept analysis approach was used as a framework to review critically the research literature and seminal texts in order to establish the conceptual clarity and maturity of facilitation in relation to its role in the implementation of evidence-based practice. FINDINGS: The concept of facilitation is partially developed and in need of delineation and comparison. Here, the purpose, role and skills and attributes of facilitators are explored in order to try and make distinctions between this role and other change agent roles such as educational outreach workers, academic detailers and opinion leaders. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that facilitation can be represented as a set of continua, with the purpose of facilitation ranging from a discrete task-focused activity to a more holistic process of enabling individuals, teams and organizations to change. A number of defining characteristics of facilitation are proposed. However, further research to clarify and evaluate different models of facilitation is required.

Diffusion of Innovation↗
PubMed2002

Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of 'context'.

AIM OF PAPER: This paper presents the findings of a concept analysis of 'context' in relation to the successful implementation of evidence into practice. BACKGROUND: In 1998, a conceptual framework was developed that represented the interplay and interdependence of the many factors influencing the uptake of evidence into practice [Kitson A., Harvey G. & McCormack B. (1998) Quality in Health Care 7, 149]. One of the key elements of the framework was 'context', that is, the setting in which evidence is implemented. It was proposed that key factors in the context of health care practice had a significant impact on the implementation and uptake of evidence. As part of the on-going development and refinement of the framework, the elements within it have undergone a concept analysis in order to provide some theoretical and conceptual rigour to its content. METHODS: Morse's [Morse J.M. (1995) Advances in Nursing Science 17, 31; Morse J.M., Hupcey J.E. & Mitcham C. (1996) Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice. An International Journal 10, 253] approach to concept analysis was used as a framework to review semi-nal texts critically and the supporting research literature in order to establish the conceptual clarity and maturity of 'context' in relation to its importance in the implementation of evidence-based practice. FINDINGS: Characteristics of the concept of context in terms of organizational culture, leadership and measurement are outlined. A main finding is that context specifically means 'the setting in which practice takes place', but that the term itself does little to reflect the complexity of the concept. Whilst the themes of culture and leadership are central characteristics of the concept, the theme of 'measurement' is better articulated through the broader term of 'evaluation'. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconsistency in the use of the term and this has an impact on claims of its importance. The concept of context lacks clarity because of the many issues that impact on the way it is characterized. Additionally, there is limited understanding of the consequences of working with different contexts. Thus, the implications of using context as a variable in research studies exploring research implementation are as yet largely unknown. The concept of context is partially developed but in need of further delineation and comparison.

Culture↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Quality of care: a comparison of perceptions of health professionals in clinical areas in the United Kingdom and the United States.

A tool was developed, using the nominal group and Delphi techniques, to explore healthcare staff's perceptions of the quality of hospital care provided in the United Kingdom compared with a tool from the United States. Similarities were identified in many core areas; however, there were several differences between the UK and US tools. This article identifies the process and findings and discusses possible reasons for similarities and differences between the tools.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Getting evidence into practice: ingredients for change.

Mounting pressure is being exerted to ensure that the delivery of care is evidence-based and clinically effective. However, the challenge this presents to practitioners is complex. The authors propose that successful implementation of evidence into practice is a function of three elements: the nature of the evidence; the context in which the change is to take place; and the way the process is managed. A framework has been developed to represent these factors. For those about to embark on implementation work, this article closes by highlighting a number of key questions for consideration, stimulated by the framework.

Delivery of Health Care↗