Implementation of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prevention of Thromboembolism in Spinal Cord Injury

Burns, Stephen P.; Nelson, Audrey; Bosshart, Helen T.; Goetz, Lance L.; Harrow, Jeffrey J.; Gerhart, Kevin D.; Bowers, Harriet; Krasnicka, Barbara; Guihan, Marylou

doi:10.1080/10790268.2005.11753796

Cited by 30 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The interventions all targeted clinician behavior and are classified into three categories based on the overall goal of the KT intervention; seven studies developed and implemented a patient care protocol that was not a current standard of care at their site, 18,19,21,[23][24][25][26]29 two studies included a KT intervention to provide Table 5. Number of participants enrolled is the number at the beginning of the study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24,25,27 An overview of the 10 studies is provided in Table 1. The studies were conducted primarily in the United States (n ¼ 5) 20,21,23,[26][27][28] and within the acute phase of care (n ¼ 4). 21,25,26,29 Most studies used a pre-post design (n ¼ 8) [21][22][23][24][25][26]28,29 that resulted in level 4 evidence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of 13 articles were classified as 'poor' with a rating of p14. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]27,29 There were two articles considered to be 'fair' , 26,28 but none were considered 'good' or 'excellent' .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the reviews based on the title, abstract and full text, 13 articles 18-30 related to 10 studies were included (see Figure 1). The articles included were published in a variety of journals; 7 of the 13 articles were published in the SCI journal 20,21,23,26,[28][29][30] and the remainder were published in rehabilitation (n ¼ 3) 18,19,22 or other types (n ¼ 3) (for example, Implementation Science). 24,25,27 An overview of the 10 studies is provided in Table 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A higher score reflects a more thorough reporting of results and more rigorous study methodology. Downs and Black score ranges were grouped into the following four quality levels according to the range suggested by Samoocha et al: 17 excellent (26-28), good (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25), fair (15)(16)(17)(18)(19) and poor (p14). Consensus among the raters was obtained when there Figure 1 Flow diagram of studies selected and included.…”

Section: Study Quality Ratingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

,5 and the SCIRE Research TeamObjective: To conduct a systematic review examining the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) interventions in changing clinical practice and patient outcomes. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for studies published from January 1980 to July 2012 that reported and evaluated an implemented KT intervention in spinal cord injury (SCI) care. We reviewed and summarized results from studies that documented the implemented KT intervention, its impact on changing clinician behavior and patient outcomes as well as the facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation. Results: A total of 13 articles featuring 10 studies were selected and abstracted from 4650 identified articles. KT interventions included developing and implementing patient care protocols, providing clinician education and incorporating outcome measures into clinical practice. The methods (or drivers) to facilitate the implementation included organizing training sessions for clinical staff, introducing computerized reminders and involving organizational leaders. The methodological quality of studies was mostly poor. Only 3 out of 10 studies evaluated the success of the implementation using statistical analyses, and all 3 reported significant behavior change. Out of the 10 studies, 6 evaluated the effect of the implementation on patient outcomes using statistical analyses, with 4 reporting significant improvements. The commonly cited facilitators and barriers were communication and resources, respectively. Conclusion: The field of KT in SCI is in its infancy with only a few relevant publications. However, there is some evidence that KT interventions may change clinician behavior and improve patient outcomes. Future studies should ensure rigorous study methods are used to evaluate KT interventions.

show abstract