Search

Background: Venous leg ulcers affect 1.5% of the UK adult population. Leg ulcers are painful, can be malodourous and are associated with poor quality of life. Leg ulcers are predominantly cared for by nurses in the community. Frequently, patients receive suboptimal treatment through unwanted variations in care and simple ulcers deteriorate to become hard‐to‐heal wounds. It is important to understand the current UK system of care and how nurses and patients navigate through it. Aim: The aim of this paper was to understand how, when, for whom and in what context leg ulcers are cared for in the United Kingdom and specifically, the current system of care, the nurses' role and the patients' experience in this system of care. Design: A realist synthesis of the literature was undertaken, reported following the RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. Data Sources: An iterative literature search was conducted across three recognized health collections from January 2010 to January 2022 that included descriptive studies as well as primary research. Results: 73 papers were included. Conclusion: In the absence of UK national guidance that recommends how leg ulcer care is organized and delivered, care is commissioned locally, with variable outcomes. Patients with venous leg ulcers would like to be looked after by knowledgeable, skilled and confident nurses, in well‐equipped and staffed clinics; nurses who have the ability to make clinical judgements to alter their treatment when necessary and are empowered to refer to specialist centres when further support is required. Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care: This synthesis offers guidance to commissioners and providers to change how leg ulcer care is organized. Patient or Public Contribution: The views of a patient and public group was sought at each stage of the synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation science literature acknowledges a need for engagement of key stakeholders when designing, delivering and evaluating implementation work. To date, the literature reports minimal or focused stakeholder engagement, where stakeholders are engaged in either barrier identification and/or barrier prioritisation. This paper begins to answer calls from the literature for the development of tools and guidance to support comprehensive stakeholder engagement in implementation research and practice. The paper describes the systematic development of the Implementation‐STakeholder Engagement Model (I‐STEM) in the context of an international, large‐scale empirical implementation study (ImpleMentAll) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored implementation toolkit. The I‐STEM is a sensitising tool that defines key considerations and activities for undertaking stakeholder engagement activities across an implementation process. Methods: In‐depth, semistructured interviews and observations were conducted with implementers who were tailoring implementation strategies to integrate and embed internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) services in 12 routine mental health care organisations in nine countries in Europe and Australia. The analytical process was informed by principles of first‐ and third‐generation Grounded Theory, including constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 55 interviews and observed 19 implementation‐related activities (e.g., team meetings and technical support calls). The final outcome of our analysis is expressed in an initial version of the I‐STEM, consisting of five interrelated concepts: engagement objectives, stakeholder mapping, engagement approaches, engagement qualities and engagement outcomes. Engagement objectives are goals that implementers plan to achieve by working with stakeholders in the implementation process. Stakeholder mapping involves identifying a range of organisations, groups or people who may be instrumental in achieving the engagement objectives. Engagement approaches define the type of work that is undertaken with stakeholders to achieve the engagement objectives. Engagement qualities define the logistics of the engagement approach. Lastly, every engagement activity may result in a range of engagement outcomes. Conclusion: The I‐STEM represents potential avenues for substantial stakeholder engagement activity across key phases of an implementation process. It provides a conceptual model for the planning, delivery, evaluation and reporting of stakeholder engagement activities. The I‐STEM is nonprescriptive and highlights the importance of a flexible, iterative approach to stakeholder engagement. It is developmental and will require application and validation across a range of implementation activities. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient contribution to ImpleMentAll trial was facilitated by GAMIAN‐Europe at all stages—from grant development to dissemination. GAMIAN‐Europe brings together a wide variety of patient representation organisations (local, regional and national) from almost all European countries. GAMIAN‐Europe was involved in pilot testing the ItFits‐toolkit and provided their views on the various aspects, including stakeholder engagement. Patients were also represented in the external advisory board providing support and advice on the design, conduct and interpretation of the wider project, including the development of the ItFits‐toolkit. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03652883. Retrospectively registered on 29 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]