Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
AimTo explore barriers and facilitators for reducing low‐value home‐based nursing care.DesignQualitative exploratory study.MethodSeven focus group interviews and two individual interviews were conducted with homecare professionals, managers and quality improvement staff members within seven homecare organizations. Data were deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases checklist.ResultsBarriers perceived by homecare professionals included lack of knowledge and skills, such as using care aids, interactions between healthcare professionals and general practitioners creating expectations among clients. Facilitators perceived included reflecting on provided care together with colleagues, clearly communicating agreements and expectations towards clients. Additionally, clients' and relatives' behaviour could potentially hinder reduction. In contrast, clients' motivation to be independent and involving relatives can promote reduction. Lastly, non‐reimbursement and additional costs of care aids were perceived as barriers. Support from organization and management for the reduction of care was considered as facilitator.ConclusionUnderstanding barriers and facilitators experienced by homecare professionals in reducing low‐value home‐based nursing care is crucial. Enhancing knowledge and skills, fostering cross‐professional collaboration, involving relatives and motivating clients' self‐care can facilitate reduction of low‐value home‐based nursing care.Implications for profession and patient care: De‐implementing low‐value home‐based nursing care offers opportunities for more appropriate care and inclusion of clients on waitlists.ImpactAddressing barriers with tailored strategies can successfully de‐implement low‐value home‐based nursing care.Reporting MethodThe Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used.No patient or public contribution.
AimTo explore barriers and facilitators for reducing low‐value home‐based nursing care.DesignQualitative exploratory study.MethodSeven focus group interviews and two individual interviews were conducted with homecare professionals, managers and quality improvement staff members within seven homecare organizations. Data were deductively analysed using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases checklist.ResultsBarriers perceived by homecare professionals included lack of knowledge and skills, such as using care aids, interactions between healthcare professionals and general practitioners creating expectations among clients. Facilitators perceived included reflecting on provided care together with colleagues, clearly communicating agreements and expectations towards clients. Additionally, clients' and relatives' behaviour could potentially hinder reduction. In contrast, clients' motivation to be independent and involving relatives can promote reduction. Lastly, non‐reimbursement and additional costs of care aids were perceived as barriers. Support from organization and management for the reduction of care was considered as facilitator.ConclusionUnderstanding barriers and facilitators experienced by homecare professionals in reducing low‐value home‐based nursing care is crucial. Enhancing knowledge and skills, fostering cross‐professional collaboration, involving relatives and motivating clients' self‐care can facilitate reduction of low‐value home‐based nursing care.Implications for profession and patient care: De‐implementing low‐value home‐based nursing care offers opportunities for more appropriate care and inclusion of clients on waitlists.ImpactAddressing barriers with tailored strategies can successfully de‐implement low‐value home‐based nursing care.Reporting MethodThe Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used.No patient or public contribution.
AimTo facilitate the delivery of appropriate care, the aim was to test if a tailored, multifaceted de‐implementation strategy (RENEW) (1) would lead to less low‐value nursing care and (2) was acceptable, implementable, cost effective and scalable in the home‐based nursing care context.DesignA mixed‐methods design.MethodsThe RENEW strategy with components on education, persuasion, enablement, incentives and training was introduced in seven teams from two organisations in the Netherlands. To estimate the effect size, data were collected at baseline (T0) and follow‐up measurement (T1), on the volume of care in both frequency and time in minutes per week and independent samples t‐tests were performed. A qualitative evaluation was conducted to understand feasibility aspects, see how the strategy works and identify influencing factors and used document analyses and semi‐structured interviews. Deductive coding was used to analyse the results.ResultsThe time spent on low‐value nursing care (mean, minutes per week per client) in seven teams for 210 clients in T1 compared to 222 clients in T0 reduced statistically significant. The difference between T0 and T1 equals 17.94%. The frequency of delivered low‐value nursing care (mean per week) reduced but not statistically significant. From the transcripts of eight semi‐structured interviews and documents, a list of 79 influencing factors were identified. Practical implementation tools, workplace coaching and sharing experiences within and between teams were considered as the most contributing elements.ConclusionThe results showed that for the seven home‐healthcare teams in this study, the RENEW strategy (1) leads to a reduction in low‐value care and (2) is—conditional upon minor modifications—acceptable, implementable, cost effective and scalable.Reporting MethodStandards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) guidelines.Patient or Public ContributionNo Patient or Public Contribution.
IntroductionThe World Health Organization defines quality of care as providing effective, evidence‐based care, and avoiding harm. Low‐value care provides little or no benefit to the patient, causes harm, and wastes limited resources. In 2017, shortly after the start of the International Choosing Wisely campaign, the first Dutch nursing “Do‐not‐do” list was published and has become a widely used practical tool for nurses working in daily practice. However, over the last years new guidelines are published. Therefore, an update of the list is necessary with an addition of high‐value care recommendations as alternative care practices for low‐value care.Design/methodsIn this study, a combination of designs was used. First, we searched Dutch clinical practice guidelines for low‐value or high‐value care recommendations. All nursing care recommendations were assessed and specified to several healthcare sectors, including hospital care, district care, nursing home care, disability care, and mental health care. Second, a prioritization among nurses regarding low‐value care recommendations was done by a cross‐sectional survey for each healthcare sector.ResultsIn total, 66 low‐value care recommendations were found, for example, “avoid unnecessary layers under the patient at risk of pressure ulcers” and “never flush the bladder to prevent urinary tract infection.” Furthermore, 414 high‐value care recommendations were selected, such as “use the Barthel Index to assess and to evaluate the degree of ADL independence” and “application of cold therapy may be considered for oncological patients with pain.” In total, 539 nurses from all healthcare sectors prioritized the low‐value care recommendations, resulting in a top five low‐value care practices per healthcare sector. The top five low‐value care recommendations differed per healthcare sector, although “do not use physical restraints in case of a delirium” was prioritized by four out of five sectors.ConclusionsAssessing low‐value and high‐value care recommendations for nurses will help and inspire nurses to deliver fundamental care for their patients. These initiatives regarding low‐value and high‐value care are essential to generate a culture of continuous quality improvement based on evidence. This is also essential to meeting the current challenges of the healthcare delivery system.Clinical relevanceThis paper provides an update of low‐value care recommendations for nurses based on Dutch guidelines from 2017 to 2023, specified to five healthcare sectors, including hospital care, district care, nursing home care, disability care and mental health care, with an accompanying prioritization of these low‐value care recommendations to facilitate de‐implementation. This paper provides a first overview of high‐value care recommendations to reflect on and create alternative care practices for low‐value care. The recommendations regarding low‐value and high‐value care are essential to generate a culture of continuous improvement of appropriateness based on evidence, finally leading to better quality of care and improving patient outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.