Clinicians' experience of providing care: a rapid review

Finding meaning in complex care nursing in a hospital setting

This study explores the experiences of nurses that provide 'complex', generalist healthcare in hospital settings. Complex care is described as care for patients experiencing acute issues additional to multimorbidity, ageing or psychosocial complexity. Nurses are the largest professional group of frontline healthcare workers and patients experiencing chronic conditions are overrepresented in acute care settings. Research exploring nurses' experiences of hospital-based complex care is limited, however. This study aims to add to what is known currently. Four 'complex care' nurses undertook in-depth semistructured interviews and their narratives were analysed using the conceptual framework of complex adaptive phenomenology. Two overarching themes constituting the 'essence' of complex care nursing were identified: Contextual factors and attribute/value-based elements. Creating meaningful patient outcomes and feeling part of a team were experienced as fulfilling, whereas time constraints, institutional settings and systemic barriers to comprehensive caregiving diminished the experience of providing complex care. Overall, work meaning presented as a dynamic phenomenon, shaped by personal and professional values, local settings and systemic factors. It is recommended that more expansive research be undertaken to explore the experience of complex care for nurses. Such knowledge can contribute to initiatives that draw a skilled, effective and engaged hospital-based complex care nursing workforce.

The role of champions in the implementation of technology in healthcare services: a systematic mixed studies review

BACKGROUND

Champions play a critical role in implementing technology within healthcare services. While prior studies have explored the presence and characteristics of champions, this review delves into the experiences of healthcare personnel holding champion roles, as well as the experiences of healthcare personnel interacting with them. By synthesizing existing knowledge, this review aims to inform decisions regarding the inclusion of champions as a strategy in technology implementation and guide healthcare personnel in these roles.

METHODS

A systematic mixed studies review, covering qualitative, quantitative, or mixed designs, was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. The search spanned Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, focusing on studies published from 2012 onwards. The review centered on health personnel serving as champions in technology implementation within healthcare services. Quality assessments utilized the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

From 1629 screened studies, 23 were included. The champion role was often examined within the broader context of technology implementation. Limited studies explicitly explored experiences related to the champion role from both champions' and health personnel's perspectives. Champions emerged as promoters of technology, supporting its adoption. Success factors included anchoring and selection processes, champions' expertise, and effective role performance.

DISCUSSION

The specific tasks and responsibilities assigned to champions differed across reviewed studies, highlighting that the role of champion is a broad one, dependent on the technology being implemented and the site implementing it. Findings indicated a correlation between champion experiences and organizational characteristics. The role's firm anchoring within the organization is crucial. Limited evidence suggests that volunteering, hiring newly graduated health personnel, and having multiple champions can facilitate technology implementation. Existing studies predominantly focused on client health records and hospitals, emphasizing the need for broader research across healthcare services.

CONCLUSIONS

With a clear mandate, dedicated time, and proper training, health personnel in champion roles can significantly contribute professional, technological, and personal competencies to facilitate technology adoption within healthcare services. The review finds that the concept of champions is a broad one and finds varied definitions of the champion role concept. This underscores the importance of describing organizational characteristics, and highlights areas for future research to enhance technology implementation strategies in different healthcare settings with support of a champion.

Evaluating clinician experience in value-based health care: the development and validation of the Clinician Experience Measure (CEM)

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' experiences of providing care constitute an important outcome for evaluating care from a value-based healthcare perspective. Yet no currently available instruments have been designed and validated for assessing clinicians' experiences. This research sought to address this important gap by developing and validating a novel instrument in a public health system in Australia.

METHODS

A multi-method project was conducted using co-design with 12 clinician leaders from a range of NSW Health Local Health Districts to develop the Clinician Experience Measure (CEM). Validity and reliability analyses were conducted in two stages, first assessing face and content validity with a pool of 25 clinicians and then using psychometric analysis with data from 433 clinicians, including nurses, doctors and allied health and representing all districts within one jurisdiction in Australia.

RESULTS

Data gathered from 25 clinicians via the face and content validity process indicated that the initial 31-items were relevant to the range of staff employed in the NSW state health system, with minor edits made to the survey layout and wording within two items. Psychometric analysis led to a rationalised 18-item final instrument, comprising four domains: psychological safety (4-items); quality of care (5-items); clinician engagement (4-items) and interprofessional collaboration (5-items). The 18-item four-factor model produced a good fit to the data and high levels of reliability, with factor loadings ranging from .62 to .94, with Cronbach's alpha (range: .83 to .96) and composite reliability (range: .85 to .97).

CONCLUSIONS

The CEM is an instrument to capture clinicians' experiences of providing care across a health system. The CEM provides a useful tool for healthcare leaders and policy makers to benchmark and assess the impact of value-based care initiatives and direct change efforts.