Involvement in decisions about intravenous treatment for nursing home patients: nursing homes versus hospital wards

Background

Many of the elderly in nursing homes are very ill and have a reduced quality of life. Life expectancy is often hard to predict. Decisions about life-prolonging treatment should be based on a professional assessment of the patient’s best interest, assessment of capacity to consent, and on the patient’s own wishes. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare how these types of decisions were made in nursing homes and in hospital wards.

Methods

Using a questionnaire, we studied the decision-making process for 299 nursing home patients who were treated for dehydration using intravenous fluids, or for bacterial infections using intravenous antibiotics. We compared the 215 (72%) patients treated in nursing homes to the 84 (28%) nursing home patients treated in the hospital.

Results

The patients’ capacity to consent was considered prior to treatment in 197 (92%) of the patients treated in nursing homes and 56 (67%) of the patients treated in hospitals (p < 0.001). The answers indicate that capacity to consent can be difficult to assess. Patients that were considered capable to consent, were more often involved in the decision-making in nursing homes than in hospital (90% vs. 52%). Next of kin and other health personnel were also more rarely involved when the nursing home patient was treated in hospital. Whether advance care planning had been carried out, was more often unknown in the hospital (69% vs. 17% in nursing homes). Hospital doctors expressed more doubt about the decision to admit the patient to the hospital than about the treatment itself.

Conclusions

This study indicates a potential for improvement in decision-making processes in general, and in particular when nursing home patients are treated in a hospital ward. The findings corroborate that nursing home patients should be treated locally if adequate health care and treatment is available. The communication between the different levels of health care when hospitalization is necessary, must be better.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01023763 (12/1/09) [The registration was delayed one month after study onset due to practical reasons].

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0258-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Between authoritarian and dialogical approaches: Attitudes and opinions on coercion among professionals in mental health and addiction care in Norway

More knowledge is needed on how to reduce the prevalence of formal and informal coercion in Norwegian mental health care. To explore possible reasons for the widespread differences in coercive practice in psychiatry and drug addiction treatment in Norway, and the poor compliance to change initiatives, we performed a nationwide survey. Six vignettes from concrete and realistic clinical situations where coercive measures were among the alternative courses of action, and where the difference between authoritarian (paternalistic) and dialogical (user participation) practices was explicitly delineated, were presented in an electronic questionnaire distributed to five groups of professionals: psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, other professionals and auxiliary treatment staff. Non-coercive dialogical resolutions were more likely than coercive authoritative. However, there is a clear professional hierarchy with regard to authoritarian approaches, with the psychiatrists on top, followed by nurses and other professionals, and with psychologists as the least authoritarian. The majority of the respondents sometimes prefer actions that are illegal, which suggests that individual opinions about coercion often overrule legislation. The variation between and within professional groups in attitudes and opinions on coercion is extensive, and may account for some of the hitherto meagre results of two ministerial action plans for coercion reduction.

How to succeed with ethics reflection groups in community healthcare? Professionals’ perceptions

Background:

Healthcare personnel in the municipal healthcare systems experience many ethical challenges in their everyday work. In Norway, 243 municipalities participated in a national ethics project, aimed to increase ethical competence in municipal healthcare services. In this study, we wanted to map out what participants in ethics reflection groups experienced as promoters or as barriers to successful reflection.

Objectives:

To examine what the staff experience as promoters or as barriers to successful ethics reflection.

Research design:

The study has a qualitative design, where 56 participants in municipal healthcare participated in 10 different focus-group interviews.

Ethical considerations:

The data collection was based on the participants’ informed consent and approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Centre for Research Data.

Results:

The informants had different experiences from ethics reflection group. Nevertheless, we found that there were several factors that were consistently mentioned: competence, facilitator’s role, ethics reflection groups organizing, and organizational support were all experienced as promoters and as a significant effect on ethics reflection groups. The absence of such factors would constitute important barriers to successful ethics reflection.

Discussion:

The results are coincident with other studies, and indicate some conditions that may increase the possibility to succeed with ethics reflection groups. A systematic approach seems to be important, the systematics of the actual reflections, but also in the organization of ethics reflection group at the workplace. Community healthcare is characterized by organizational instabilities as many vacancies, high workloads, and lack of predictability. This can be a hinder for ethics reflection group.

Conclusion:

Both internal and external factors seem to influence the organization of ethics reflection group. The municipalities’ instabilities challenging this work, and perceived as a clear inhibitor for the development. The participants experienced that the facilitator is the most important success factor for establishing, carrying out, and to succeed with ethics reflection groups.

The silent world of young next of kin in mental healthcare

BACKGROUND:

Young next of kin to patients with mental health problems are faced with many challenges. It is important to focus on the special needs of children and adolescents as next of kin to ensure their welfare and prevent harm.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

We aimed to investigate young next of kin's need for information and involvement, to examine the ways they cope with situations involving coercion related to the treatment of their relative, and to identify ethical challenges.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

We conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured, individual interviews.

PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT:

Seven young next of kin aged 14-22 years participated in the study. The informants were recruited from a regional hospital trust in Norway.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

The study was approved by the National Data Protection Official for Research and based upon informed consent and confidentiality.

FINDINGS:

The adolescents wanted more information and described a need for increased interaction with their sick relative at the hospital. They struggled to keep their relationship with their relative intact, and they described communication problems in the family. Coercive treatment was perceived in a negative way.

DISCUSSION:

The study finds that there are ethical challenges at stake for young next of kin and their families other than those that are often emphasized by traditional healthcare, which often focuses on the individual patient's rights. These challenges are related to the young next of kin's needs for interconnectedness and for the preservation of relationships as well as challenges related to family communication and the need for information.

CONCLUSION:

The study finds a need for more family-oriented perspectives in both mental healthcare practices and healthcare ethics.

Roles and responsibilities of clinical ethics committees in priority setting

BACKGROUND

Fair prioritization of healthcare resources has been on the agenda for decades, but resource allocation dilemmas in clinical practice remain challenging. Can clinical ethics committees (CECs) be of help? The aim of the study was to explore whether and how CECs handle priority setting dilemmas and contribute to raising awareness of fairness concerns.

METHOD

Descriptions of activities involving priority setting in annual reports from Norwegian CECs (2003-2015) were studied and categorized through qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-nine reports from 38 CECs were studied. We found 78 activities where resource use or priority setting were explicitly highlighted as main topics. Of these, 29 were seminars or other educational activities, 21 were deliberations on individual patient cases, whereas 28 were discussions of principled or general cases. Individual patient cases concerned various distributional dilemmas where values were at stake. Six main topics and seven roles for the CEC were identified. CECs handle issues concerning the introduction of new costly drugs, extraordinarily costly established treatment, the application of priority setting criteria, resource use for vulnerable groups, resource constraints compromising practice, and futility of care. The CEC can act as an analyst, advisor, moderator, disseminator, facilitator, watch dog, and guardian of values and laws.

DISCUSSION

In order to fulfil their responsibilities in handling priority setting cases, CECs need knowledge of both the ethics and the institutionalized systems of priority setting. There is potential for developing this aspect of the CECs' work further.

CONCLUSIONS

The Norwegian CECs are involved in priority setting decisions where they can play multiple constructive roles. In particular, they advise and raise awareness of ethical aspects in resource allocations; bridge clinical practice with higher-level decisions; and promote fair resource allocation and stakeholder rights and interests.

Staff's normative attitudes towards coercion: the role of moral doubt and professional context-a cross-sectional survey study

Background

The use of coercion is morally problematic and requires an ongoing critical reflection. We wondered if not knowing or being uncertain whether coercion is morally right or justified (i.e. experiencing moral doubt) is related to professionals’ normative attitudes regarding the use of coercion.

Methods

This paper describes an explorative statistical analysis based on a cross-sectional survey across seven wards in three Norwegian mental health care institutions.

Results

Descriptive analyses showed that in general the 379 respondents a) were not so sure whether coercion should be seen as offending, b) agreed with the viewpoint that coercion is needed for care and security, and c) slightly disagreed that coercion could be seen as treatment. Staff did not report high rates of moral doubt related to the use of coercion, although most of them agreed there will never be a single answer to the question ‘What is the right thing to do?’.

Bivariate analyses showed that the more they experienced general moral doubt and relative doubt, the more one thought that coercion is offending. Especially psychologists were critical towards coercion. We found significant differences among ward types. Respondents with decisional responsibility for coercion and leadership responsibility saw coercion less as treatment. Frequent experience with coercion was related to seeing coercion more as care and security.

Conclusions

This study showed that experiencing moral doubt is related to some one’s normative attitude towards coercion. Future research could investigate whether moral case deliberation increases professionals’ experience of moral doubt and whether this will evoke more critical thinking and increase staff’s curiosity for alternatives to coercion.

Worlds apart? A scoping review addressing different stakeholder perspectives on barriers to family involvement in the care for persons with severe mental illness

Background

Empirical evidence shows that family involvement (FI) can play a pivotal role in the coping and recovery of persons with severe mental illness (SMI). Nevertheless, various studies demonstrate that FI in mental healthcare services is often not (sufficiently) realized. In order to develop more insights, this scoping review gives an overview of how various stakeholders conceptualize, perceive and experience barriers to FI. Central questions are: 1) What are the main barriers to FI reported by the different key stakeholders (i.e. the persons with SMI, their families and the professionals, and 2) What are the differences and similarities between the various stakeholders’ perspectives on these barriers.

Methods

A systematic search into primary studies regarding FI was conducted in four databases: Medline/Pubmed, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Web of Knowledge with the use of a PICO scheme. Thematic analysis focused on stakeholder perspectives (i.e. which stakeholder group reports the barrier) and types of barriers (i.e. which types of barriers are addressed).

Results

Thirty three studies were included. The main barriers reported by the stakeholder groups reveal important similarities and differences between the stakeholder groups and were related to: 1) the person with SMI, 2) the family, 3) the professionals, 4) the organization of care and 5) the culture-paradigm.

Discussion

Our stakeholder approach elicits the different stakeholders’ concepts, presuppositions and experiences of barriers to FI, and gives fundamental insights on how to deal with barriers to FI. The stakeholders differing interpretations and perceptions of the barriers related to FI is closely related to the inherent complexity involved in FI in itself. In order to deal better with these barriers, openly discussing and reflecting upon each other’s normative understandings of barriers is needed.

Conclusions

Differences in perceptions of barriers to FI can itself be a barrier. To deal with barriers to FI, a dialogical approach on how the different stakeholders perceive and value FI and its barriers is required. Methods such as moral case deliberation or systematic ethics reflections can be useful.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2213-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Advance care planning in Norwegian nursing homes

BACKGROUND

Nursing home patients are often frail and have a number of chronic conditions. Increased risk of critical events, hospitalisations and death indicates the need for dialogue with patients and their next of kin about the future, how to agree on sound decisions and what should happen if the patient’s health condition deteriorates. Previous studies have shown that only a minority of nursing homes practise this type of advance care planning.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

In early summer 2014, a questionnaire was sent to all Norwegian nursing homes, containing questions about the prevalence and content of advance care planning.

RESULTS

A total of 57 % (486 nursing homes) responded to the survey. Approximately two-thirds reported that they «always’ or «usually’ undertook advance care planning and around one-third of them had written guidelines. The conversations primarily took place when the patient’s health condition deteriorated, when the patient entered the last phase of life, or in connection with the admission interview. Hospitalisation, pain relief and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were the most frequent topics. Next of kin and the nursing home doctor participated most often in the interviews, while the patients participated more seldom.

INTERPRETATION

There were large variations between the nursing homes with regard to advance care planning. This may partly be explained by the lack of national guidelines, and partly by the fact that this is a relatively recent discussion in Norway. The infrequent participation by patients in the conversations is probably associated with the fact that among them a high proportion are cognitively impaired, the availability of medical resources is low, and a culture of patient participation is insufficiently developed.

One patient, two worlds - coordination between nursing home and hospital doctors

BACKGROUND

Increasingly poor health in the nursing home population and transfer of responsibilities to the municipal health services place great demands on collaboration between primary and secondary health services. The article presents the opinions of nursing home and hospital doctors with regard to treatment of nursing home patients and their descriptions of the coordination between doctors at the two levels.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This qualitative study was conducted in a Norwegian county in 2011 – 12. The results are based on manifest content analysis of ten focus group interviews with a total of 46 nursing home doctors, and eight focus group interviews with 41 hospital doctors from the medical departments in the public county hospital.

RESULTS

From their respective standpoints, both groups of doctors were concerned about unnecessary admissions and overtreatment in hospitals. They had widely differing approaches to patient treatment and communicated that little coordination took place in the treatment of nursing home patients. Both groups described strikingly little communication between the doctors in the context of transfer between the levels.

INTERPRETATION

Preconceived notions, negative experiences and lack of communication may reduce trust and prevent proper dialogue about patients. This may cause both over- and undertreatment, as well as give rise to erroneous expectations. The municipal health services and the hospitals share the responsibility for appropriate coordination and treatment of individual patients from nursing homes.

Next of kin's experiences of involvement during involuntary hospitalisation and coercion

BACKGROUND

Norway has extensive and detailed legal requirements and guidelines concerning involvement of next of kin (NOK) during involuntary hospital treatment of seriously mentally ill patients. However, we have little knowledge about what happens in practice. This study explores NOK's views and experiences of involvement during involuntary hospitalisation in Norway.

METHODS

We performed qualitative interviews-focus groups and individual-with 36 adult NOK to adults and adolescents who had been involuntarily admitted once or several times. The semi-structured interview guide included questions on experiences with and views on involvement during serious mental illness and coercion.

RESULTS

Most of the NOK were heavily involved in the patient's life and illness. Their conceptions of involvement during mental illness and coercion, included many important aspects adding to the traditional focus on substitute decision-making. The overall impression was, with a few exceptions, that the NOK had experienced lack of involvement or had negative experiences as NOK in their encounters with the health services. Not being seen and acknowledged as important caregivers and co sufferers were experienced as offensive and could add to their feelings of guilt. Lack of involvement had as a consequence that vital patient information which the NOK possessed was not shared with the patient's therapists.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite public initiatives to improve the involvement of NOK, the NOK in our study felt neglected, unappreciated and dismissed. The paper discusses possible reasons for the gap between public policies and practice which deserve more attention: 1. A strong and not always correct focus on legal matters. 2. Little emphasis on the role of NOK in professional ethics. 3. The organisation of health services and resource constraints. 4. A conservative culture regarding the role of next of kin in mental health care. Acknowledging these reasons may be helpful to understand deficient involvement of the NOK in voluntary mental health services.

The Norwegian national project for ethics support in community health and care services

Background

Internationally, clinical ethics support has yet to be implemented systematically in community health and care services. A large-scale Norwegian project (2007–2015) attempted to increase ethical competence in community services through facilitating the implementation of ethics support activities in 241 Norwegian municipalities. The article describes the ethics project and the ethics activities that ensued.

Methods

The article first gives an account of the Norwegian ethics project. Then the results of two online questionnaires are reported, characterizing the scope, activities and organization of the ethics activities in the Norwegian municipalities and the ethical topics addressed.

Results

One hundred and thirty-seven municipal contact persons answered the first survey (55 % response rate), whereas 217 ethics facilitators from 48 municipalities responded to the second (33 % response rate). The Norwegian ethics project is vast in scope, yet has focused on some institutions and professions (e.g., nursing homes, home-based care; nurses, nurses’ aides, unskilled workers) whilst seldom reaching others (e.g., child and adolescent health care; physicians). Patients and next of kin were very seldom involved. Through the ethics project employees discussed many important ethical challenges, in particular related to patient autonomy, competence to consent, and cooperation with next of kin. The “ethics reflection group” was the most common venue for ethics deliberation.

Conclusions

The Norwegian project is the first of its kind and scope, and other countries may learn from the Norwegian experiences. Professionals have discussed central ethical dilemmas, the handling of which arguably makes a difference for patients/users and service quality. The study indicates that large (national) scale implementation of CES structures for the municipal health and care services is complex, yet feasible.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0158-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients’ moral views on coercion in mental healthcare

Background:

Coercion in mental healthcare has led to ethical debate on its nature and use. However, few studies have explicitly explored patients’ moral evaluations of coercion.

Aim:

The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of patients’ moral views and considerations regarding coercion.

Research design:

Semi-structured focus-group and individual interviews were conducted and data were analysed through a thematic content analysis.

Participants and research context:

A total of 24 adult participants with various mental health problems and experiences with coercion were interviewed in 2012–2013 in three regions of Norway.

Ethical considerations:

Ethical approval and permissions were obtained according to required procedures. Informed consent and confidentiality were also secured.

Findings:

Ethical considerations regarding coercion included seven main themes: the need for alternative perspectives and solutions, the existence of a danger or harm to oneself or others, the problem of paternalism, the problem of discrimination and stigma, the need for proportionality, the importance of the content and consequences of coercion and concerns about way that coercion is carried out in practice.

Discussion:

The participants’ views and considerations are in line with previous research and reflect the range of normative arguments commonly encountered in ethical and legal debates. The study accentuates the significance of institutional factors and alternative voluntary treatment opportunities, as well as the legal and ethical principles of proportionality and purposefulness, in moral evaluations of coercion.

Conclusion:

Broader perspectives on coercion are required to comprehend its ethical challenges and derive possible solutions to these from a patient perspective.

Ethics support in community care makes a difference for practice

BACKGROUND

Through the Norwegian ethics project, ethics activities have been implemented in the health and care sector in more than 200 municipalities.

OBJECTIVES

To study outcomes of the ethics activities and examine which factors promote and inhibit significance and sustainability of the activities.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Two online questionnaires about the municipal ethics activities. Participants and research context: A total of 137 municipal contact persons for the ethics project answered the first survey (55% response rate), whereas 217 ethics facilitators responded to the second survey (33% response rate). Ethical considerations: Based on informed consent, the study was approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services.

FINDINGS

Around half of the respondents found the ethics project to have been highly significant for daily professional practice. Outcomes include better handling of ethical challenges, better employee cooperation, better service quality, and better relations to patients and next of kin. Factors associated with sustainability and/or significance of the activities were sufficient support from stakeholders, sufficient available time, and ethics facilitators having sufficient knowledge and skills in ethics and access to supervision.

DISCUSSION

This study shows that ethics initiatives can be both sustainable and significant for practice. There is a need to create regional or national structures for follow-up and develop more comprehensive ethics training for ethics facilitators.

CONCLUSION

It is both possible and potentially important to implement clinical ethics support activities in community health and care services systematically on a large scale. Future ethics initiatives in the community sector should be designed in light of documented promoting and inhibiting factors.

Four Roles of Ethical Theory in Clinical Ethics Consultation

When clinical ethics committee members discuss a complex ethical dilemma, what use do they have for normative ethical theories? Members without training in ethical theory may still contribute to a pointed and nuanced analysis. Nonetheless, the knowledge and use of ethical theories can play four important roles: aiding in the initial awareness and identification of the moral challenges, assisting in the analysis and argumentation, contributing to a sound process and dialogue, and inspiring an attitude of reflexivity. These four roles of ethical theory in clinical ethics consultation are described and their significance highlighted, while an example case is used as an illustration throughout.

Two years of moral case deliberations on the use of coercion in mental health care: Which ethical challenges are being discussed by health care professionals?

Background

Seven wards from three Norwegian mental health care institutions participated in a study in which regular ethics reflection groups focusing on coercion had been implemented and evaluated (2011–2015). This article presents (1) a thematic overview of the ethical challenges identified based on a systematic qualitative analyses of 161 ethics reflection groups and (2) some general observations on these ethical challenges.

Results

The ethical challenges are divided into four main thematic categories: (1) formal coercion, (2) informal coercion, (3) uncertainty related to the Norwegian legislation on coercion and (4) professional role and identity. Some ethical challenges did not fit into these categories. Only 36% of the ethical challenges were related to the use of formal coercion or the interpretation of the health law.

Conclusion

Even within coercion regulated by law, weighing different moral values remains important to reflect upon the appropriateness of the possible use of coercion.

Exploring the views of people with mental health problems' on the concept of coercion: Towards a broader socio-ethical perspective

In mental health care, coercion is a controversial issue that has led to much debate and research on its nature and use. Yet, few previous studies have explicitly explored the views on the concept of coercion among people with first-hand experiences of being coerced. This study includes semi-structured focus-groups and individual interviews with 24 participants who had various mental health problems and experiences with coercion. Data were collected in 2012-2013 in three regions of Norway and analysed by a thematic content analysis. Findings show that participants had wide-ranging accounts of coercion, including formal and informal coercion across health- and welfare services. They emphasised that using coercion reflects the mental health system's tendency to rely on coercion and the lack of voluntary services and treatment methods that are more helpful. Other core characteristics of coercion were deprivation of freedom, power relations, in terms of powerlessness and 'counter-power,' and coercion as existential and social life events. Participants' views are consistent with prevailing theories of coercion and research on perceived coercion. However, this study demonstrates a need for broader existential and socio-ethical perspectives on coercion that are intertwined with treatment and care systems in research and practice. Implications for mental health policy and services are discussed.

Ethical challenges when using coercion in mental healthcare: A systematic literature review

Background:

To better understand the kinds of ethical challenges that emerge when using coercion in mental healthcare, and the importance of these ethical challenges, this article presents a systematic review of scientific literature.

Methods:

A systematic search in the databases MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Knowledge was carried out. The search terms derived from the population, intervention, comparison/setting and outcome. A total of 22 studies were included.

Ethical considerations:

The review is conducted according to the Vancouver Protocol.

Results:

There are few studies that study ethical challenges when using coercion in an explicit way. However, promoting the patient’s best interest is the most important justification for coercion. Patient autonomy is a fundamental challenge facing any use of coercion, and some kind of autonomy infringement is a key aspect of the concept of coercion. The concepts of coercion and autonomy and the relations between them are very complex. When coercion is used, a primary ethical challenge is to assess the balance between promoting good (beneficence) and inflicting harm (maleficence). In the included studies, findings explicitly related to justice are few. Some studies focus on moral distress experienced by the healthcare professionals using coercion.

Conclusion:

There is a lack of literature explicitly addressing ethical challenges related to the use of coercion in mental healthcare. It is essential for healthcare personnel to develop a strong awareness of which ethical challenges they face in connection with the use of coercion, as well as challenges related to justice. How to address ethical challenges in ways that prevent illegitimate paternalism and strengthen beneficent treatment and care and trust in connection with the use of coercion is a ‘clinical must’. By developing a more refined and rich language describing ethical challenges, clinicians may be better equipped to prevent coercion and the accompanying moral distress.

A review of the implementation and research strategies of advance care planning in nursing homes

Background

Nursing home (NH) patients have complex health problems, disabilities and needs for Advance Care Planning (ACP). The implementation of ACP in NHs is a neglected research topic, yet it may optimize the intervention efficacy, or provide explanations for low efficacy. This scoping review investigates methods, design and outcomes and the implementation of ACP (i.e., themes and guiding questions, setting, facilitators, implementers, and promoters/barriers).

Methods

A systematic search using ACP MESH terms and keywords was conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase and Cochrane libraries. We excluded studies on home-dwelling and hospital patients, including only specific diagnoses and/or chart-based interventions without conversations.

Results

Sixteen papers were included. There were large variations in definitions and content of ACP, study design, implementation strategies and outcomes. Often, the ACP intervention or implementation processes were not described in detail. Few studies included patients lacking decision-making capacity, despite the fact that this group is significantly present in most NHs. The chief ACP implementation strategy was education of staff. Among others, ACP improved documentation of and adherence to preferences. Important implementation barriers were non-attending NH physicians, legal challenges and reluctance to participate among personnel and relatives.

Conclusion

ACP intervention studies in NHs are few and heterogeneous. Variation in ACP definitions may be related to cultural and legal differences. This variation, along with sparse information about procedures, makes it difficult to collate and compare research results. Essential implementation considerations relate to the involvement and education of nurses, physicians and leaders.