Rycroft-Malone, Jo, Fontenla, Marina, Bick, Debra and Seers, Kate. (2008) Protocol-based care : impact on roles and service delivery. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol.14 (No.5). pp. 867-873. ISSN 1356-1294

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the impact of protocol-based care on nursing roles, practice and service delivery. Design Case study evaluation informed by realistic evaluation methodology. Qualitative data collection methods were used including non-participant observation, post-observation interviews with nurses and patients, key informant interviews, tracking patient journeys and document review. Participants 141 participants took part including 73 nurses, midwives and health visitors, 4 allied health professionals, 20 doctors, 5 support staff and 39 patients. Settings Five sites were purposively sampled and included acute and primary care service provision. Findings As a mechanism for standardization, the use of protocol-based care approaches such as guidelines, care pathways, protocols and algorithms was patchy and dependent on contextual, professional and individual factors. Protocol-based care approaches were commonly used as checklists and for reference; nurses and doctors expressed concern that such use could lead to a 'tick box mentality' and restricted judgement. By using standardized care approaches nurses were taking on new tasks and developing skills beyond the traditional scope of practice including prescribing, diagnosing, ordering tests and sometimes deciding on treatments. The ability to perform these roles meant that they were able to run clinics or services independently. The extension of roles to incorporate prescribing, for example, meant that nurses were able to provide a more streamlined service for patients because they did not have to refer to doctors. In turn, it was reported that this reduced doctors' workload. Protocol-based care was viewed as a 'nurses' thing'; however, some General Practitioners and junior doctors were using available standardized care approaches. Conclusions The potential of standardization was mediated by the patchy use of protocol-based care approaches and negative perceptions about standardization. Use of protocol-based care has the potential to impact on nurses' roles, increasing their autonomy and subsequently impacting on service delivery.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine R Medicine > RT Nursing
Divisions:	Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Health and Social Studies
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Evidence-based medicine -- Case studies, Medical protocols, Nursing care plans -- Case studies
Journal or Publication Title:	Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher:	Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
ISSN:	1356-1294
Date:	October 2008
Volume:	Vol.14
Number:	No.5
Number of Pages:	7
Page Range:	pp. 867-873
Identification Number:	10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01015.x
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	National Institute for Health Research (Great Britain). Service Delivery and Organisation Programme
Grant number:	SDO/78/2004 (NIHR)
References:	1. Department of Health. (2000) The NHS Plan.APlan for Investment.A Plan for Reform. London: DoH. 2. NHS Modernisation Agency & National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2002a) Protocol-based care underpinning improvement – what is protocol-based care? Available at: http://www.wise.nhs.uk/ cmsWISE/Workforce+Themes/Using_Task_Skills_Effectively/ workingsafely/pbc/pbc.htm (last accessed 15 August 2004). 3. Latter, S., Maben, J., Myall, M., Courtenay, M., Young, A. & Dunn, N. (2004) Evaluation of Extended Formulary Independent Nurse Prescribing. Final Report. London: Department of Health. 4. Porrett, T., Knowles, C. H. & Lunniss, P. J. (2003) Creation of a treatment protocol for nurse-led management of anal fissure. Colorectal Disease, 5, 63–72. 5. Woodward, A., Wallymahmed, M., Wilding, J. & Gill, G. (2006) Successful cardiovascular risk reduction in Type 2 diabetes by nurseled care using an open clinical algorithm. Diabetic Medicine, 23, 780–787. 6. Rycroft-Malone, J., Morrell, C. & Bick, D. (2004) Protocol-based care: the research agenda. Nursing Standard, 19 (6), 33–36. 7. Manias, E. & Street, A. (2000) Legitimation of Nurses’ knowledge though policies and protocols in clinical practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32 (4), 1467–1475. 8. Lawton, R. & Parker, D. (1998) Procedures and the professional: the case of medicine. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 353–361. 9. Parker, D. & Lawton, R. (2000) Judging the use of clinical protocols by fellow professionals. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 669– 677. 10. McDonald, R., Waring, J., Harrison, S., Walshe, K. & Boaden, R. (2005) Rules and guidelines in clinical practice: a qualitative study in operating theatres of doctors’ and nurses’ views. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 290–294. 11. Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage. 12. Rycroft-Malone, J., Bick, D. & Seers, K. Protocol-based care evaluation. Available at: http://www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk/sdo782004.html (last accessed 2 February 2008). 13. Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research. Designs and Methods, 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 14. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba E. C. (1985) Naturalistic Enquiry, Newbury Park: Sage. 15. Spradley, J. (1980) Participant Observation. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 16. Huberman, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (1998) Data management and analysis methods. In Collecting And Interpreting Qualitative Materials (eds N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln), pp. 179–210.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 17. Partington, L. (2006) The challenge in adopting care of pathways for the dying for use in care homes. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 1 (1) 51–55. 18. Pinder, R., Petchey, R., Shaw, S. & Carter, Y. (2005) What’s in a pathway? Towards a cultural cartography of the new NHS. Sociology of Health and Illness, 27 (6), 759–779. 19. New Labour, Harrison S. (2002) Modernisation and the medical labour process. Journal of Social Policy, 31 (3), 465–485. 20. Harrison, S., Moran, M. & Wood, B. (2002) Policy emergence and policy convergence: the case of ‘scientific-bureaucratic medicine’ in the United States and United Kingdom. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4 (1), 1–24. 21. Rycroft-Malone, J., Kitson, A., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Seers, K., Titchen, A. & Estabrooks, C. (2002) Ingredients for change: revisiting a conceptual model. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 11, 174. 22. Sheldon, T. A., Cullum, N., Dawson, D., Lankshear, A., Lowson, K., Watt, I., West, P., Wright, D. & Wright, J. (2004) What’s the evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series analysis, audit of patients’ notes, and interviews. British Medical Journal, 329, 999. 23. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., McFarlane, F., Bate, P. & Kyriakidou, O. (2004) Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82 (4), 581– 629. 24. Berg, M. (1997) Problems and promises of the protocol. Social Science and Medicine, 44 (8), 1081–1088.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/29075

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item