Search

Background Venous leg ulcer management in the UK varies significantly. Judgements made by nurses contribute to this variability and it is often assumed that specialist nurses make better judgements than non-specialist nurses. This paper compares the judgements of community tissue viability specialist nurses and community generalist nurses; specifically, the ways they use clinical information and their levels of accuracy. Objectives To compare specialist and non-specialist UK community nurses’ clinical information use when managing venous leg ulceration and their levels of accuracy when making diagnoses and judging the need for treatment. Design Judgement analysis. Setting UK community and primary care nursing services. Participants 18 community generalist nurses working in district (home) nursing teams and general practitioner services and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses. Methods Data were collected in 2011 and 2012. 18 community generalist nurses and 18 community tissue viability specialist nurses made diagnostic and treatment judgements on 110 clinical scenarios and indicated their confidence in each of their judgements. Scenarios were generated from real patient cases and presented online using text and photographs. An expert panel made judgements, and reached consensus on the same scenarios. These judgements were used as a standard against which to compare the participants. Logistic regression models and correlational statistics were used to generate various indices of judgement “performance”: accuracy, consistency, confidence calibration and information use. Differences between groups of nurses with different levels of characteristics linked to expertise were explored using analysis of variance. Results Specialist nurses had similar cue usage to the generalist nurses but were more accurate when making diagnostic and treatment judgements. Conclusion It is not obvious why the tissue viability specialist nurses were more accurate. One possible reason might be the greater opportunities for ‘deliberate practice’ afforded to specialists. However, restricting aspects of practice only to specialist nurses is likely to hinder the judgement performance of generalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An implementation gap exists between policy aspirations for provision and the delivery of self-management support in primary care. An evidence based training and support package using a whole systems approach implemented as part of a randomised controlled trial was delivered to general practice staff. The trial found no effect of the intervention on patient outcomes. This paper explores why self-management support failed to become part of normal practice. We focussed on implementation of tools which capture two key aspects of self-management support - education (guidebooks for patients) and forming collaborative partnerships (a shared decision-making tool). Objectives: To evaluate the implementation and embedding of self-management support in a United Kingdom primary care setting. Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals. Settings: 12 General Practices in the Northwest of England located within a deprived inner city area. Participants: Practices were approached 3-6 months after undergoing training in a selfmanagement support approach. A pragmatic sample of 37 members of staff - General Practitioners, nurses, and practice support staff from 12 practices agreed to take part. The analysis is based on interviews with 11 practice nurses and one assistant practitioner; all were female with between 2 and 21 years' experience of working in general practice. Methods: A qualitative design involving face-to-face, semi-structured interviews audio- recorded and transcribed. Normalisation Process Theory framework allowed a systematic evaluation of the factors influencing the work required to implement the tools. Findings: The guidebooks were embedded in daily practice but the shared decision- making tools were not. Guidebooks were considered to enhance patient-centredness and were minimally disruptive. Practice nurses were reluctant to engage with behaviour change discussions. Self-management support was not formulated as a practice priority and there was minimal support for this activity within the practice: it was not auditable; [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]