Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
NIHR CLAHRC Greater Manchester, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 31;9(7):e024859. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024859.
Research has found unwarranted variation across community wound care services in the North of England, with underuse of evidence-based practice and overuse of interventions where there is little or no known patient benefit. This study explored the factors that influence care in community settings for people with complex wounds, to develop a deeper understanding of the current context of wound care and variation in practice.
Qualitative focus group study using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to structure the questions, prompts and analyses.
Community healthcare settings in the North of England, UK.
Forty-six clinical professionals who cared for patients with complex wounds and eight non-clinical professionals who were responsible for procuring wound care products participated across six focus group interviews.
We found the TDF domains: environmental context and resources, knowledge, skills, social influences and behaviour regulation to best explain the variation in wound care and the underuse of research evidence. Factors such as financial pressures were perceived as having a negative effect on the continuity of care, the availability of wound care services and workloads. We found practice to be mainly based on experiential knowledge and personal preference and highly influenced by colleagues, patients and the pharmaceutical industry, although not by research evidence.
Our study provides new insight into the role that experiential learning and social influences play in determining wound care and on the limited influence of research. Workforce pressures and limited resources are perceived to impede care by reducing patient access to services and the ability to provide holistic care. Participative collaboration between university and healthcare organisations may offer a supportive route to addressing issues, implementing sustainable changes to practice and service delivery and a resolute commitment to research use among clinical professionals.
研究发现,英格兰北部的社区伤口护理服务存在不必要的差异,证据基础实践的使用不足,而干预措施的使用过度,而这些干预措施对患者几乎没有或没有已知的益处。本研究探讨了影响社区环境中复杂伤口患者护理的因素,以更深入地了解当前伤口护理的背景和实践中的差异。
使用理论领域框架(TDF)对问题、提示和分析进行结构化的定性焦点小组研究。
英国英格兰北部的社区医疗保健环境。
46 名照顾复杂伤口患者的临床专业人员和 8 名负责采购伤口护理产品的非临床专业人员,他们参与了 6 次焦点小组访谈。
我们发现 TDF 领域:环境背景和资源、知识、技能、社会影响和行为调节,最能解释伤口护理的差异和对研究证据的使用不足。财务压力等因素被认为对护理的连续性、伤口护理服务的可及性和工作量产生负面影响。我们发现实践主要基于经验知识和个人偏好,并且受到同事、患者和制药行业的高度影响,尽管不受研究证据的影响。
我们的研究提供了新的见解,即经验学习和社会影响在决定伤口护理方面的作用,以及研究的影响有限。劳动力压力和有限的资源被认为通过减少患者获得服务的机会和提供整体护理的能力来阻碍护理。大学和医疗机构之间的参与式合作可能提供一种支持性的途径,以解决问题、实施对实践和服务提供的可持续性变革,并坚定承诺在临床专业人员中使用研究。