Adaptation of high-quality practice guidelines for local use has been advanced as an efficient means to improve acceptability and applicability of evidence-informed care. In a pan-Canadian study, we examined how cancer care groups adapted pre-existing guidelines to their unique context and began implementation planning.

Background: Practice guidelines can reduce variations in nursing practice and improve patient care. However, implementation of guidelines is complex and inconsistent in practice. It is unclear which strategies are effective at implementing guidelines in nursing. This review aimed to describe the use and effects of implementation strategies to facilitate the uptake of guidelines focused on nursing care.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of five electronic databases in addition to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group specialized registry. Studies were included if implementation of a practice guideline in nursing and process or outcome of care provided by nurses were reported. Two reviewers independently screened studies, assessed study quality, extracted data, and coded data using the EPOC taxonomy of implementation strategies. For those strategies not included in the EPOC taxonomy, we inductively categorized these strategies and generated additional categories. We conducted a narrative synthesis to analyze results.Results: The search identified 46 papers reporting on 41 studies. Thirty-six studies used a combination of educational materials and educational meetings. Review findings show that multicomponent implementation strategies that include educational meetings, in combination with other educational strategies, report positive effects on professional practice outcomes, professional knowledge outcomes, patient health status outcomes, and resource use/expenditures. Twenty-three of the 41 studies employed implementation strategies not listed within the EPOC taxonomy, including adaptation of practice guidelines to local context (n = 9), external facilitation (n = 14), and changes to organizational policy (n = 3). These implementation strategies also corresponded with positive trends in patient, provider, and health system outcomes.Conclusions: Nursing guideline implementation may benefit from using the identified implementation strategies described in this review, including participatory approaches such as facilitation, adaptation of guidelines, and organizational policy changes. Further research is needed to understand how different implementation strategy components work in a nursing context and to what effect. As the field is still emerging, future reviews should also explore guideline implementation strategies in nursing in quasi or non-experimental research designs and qualitative research studies.

Facilitation is emerging as an important strategy in the uptake of evidence. However, it is not entirely clear from a practical perspective how facilitation occurs to help move research evidence into nursing practice. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, also known as the 'Partnership,' is a Pan-Canadian initiative supporting knowledge translation activity for improved care through guideline use. In this case-series study, five self-identified groups volunteered to use a systematic methodology to adapt existing clinical practice guidelines for Canadian use. With 'Partnership' support, local and external facilitators provided assistance for groups to begin the process by adapting the guidelines and planning for implementation.

Objective: To determine the relative effectiveness of evidence-informed practice using two high compression systems: four-layer (4LB) and short-stretch bandaging (SSB) in community care of venous leg ulcers. Design and Setting: Pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in 10 centres. Cognitively intact adults (≥18 years) referred for community care (home or clinic) with a venous ulceration measuring ≥0.7cm and present for ≥1 week, with an ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) ≥0.8, without medication-controlled Diabetes Mellitus or a previous failure to improve with either system, were eligible to participate. Consenting individuals were randomly allocated (computer-generated blocked randomization schedule) to receive either 4LB or SSB following an evidence-informed protocol. Primary endpoint: time-to- healing of the reference ulcer. Secondary outcomes: recurrence rates, health-related quality of life (HRQL), pain, and expenditures. 424 individuals were randomized (4LB n = 215; SSB n = 209) and followed until their reference ulcer was healed (or maximum 30 months). An intent-to-treat analysis was conducted on all participants. Median time to ulcer healing in the 4LB group was 62 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 51 to 73], compared with 77 days (95% CI 63 to 91) in the SSB group. The unadjusted Kaplan-Meier curves revealed the difference in the distribution of cumulative healing times was not significantly different between group (log rank χ2 = 0.001, P = 0.98) nor ulcers recurrence (4LB, 10.1%; SSB, 13.3%; p = 0.345). Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard Modeling also showed no significant between-bandage differences in healing time after controlling for significant covariates (p = 0.77). At 3-months post-baseline there were no differences in pain (no pain: 4LB, 22.7%; SSB, 26.7%; p = 0.335), or HRQL (SF-12 Mental Component Score: 4LB, 55.1; SSB, 55.8; p = 0.615; SF-12 Physical Component Score: 4LB, 39.0; SSB, 39.6; p = 0.675). The most common adverse events experienced by both groups included infection, skin breakdown and ulcer deterioration. The Canadian Bandaging Trial revealed that in the practice context of trained RNs using an evidence-informed protocol, the choice of bandage system (4LB and SSB) does not materially affect healing times, recurrence rates, HRQL, or pain. From a community practice perspective, this is positive news for patient-centred care allowing individual/family and practitioner choice in selecting compression technologies based on circumstances and context. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00202267

Background: Our research team has undertaken implementation of evidence in the form of practice guideline recommendations for populations in hospital, community, and long‐term care settings with diverse provider and patient populations (people with chronic wounds, e.g., pressure and leg ulcers, heart failure, stroke, diabetes, palliative care, cancer, and maternity care). Translating evidence into clinical practice at the point of care is a complex and often overwhelming challenge for the health system as well as for individual practitioners.Purpose: To ensure that best available evidence is integrated into practice, “local evidence” needs to be generated and this process accomplishes a number of things: it focuses all involved on the “same page,” identifies important facilitating factors as well as barriers, provides empirical support for planning, and in itself is a key aspect of implementation. In doing this work, we developed a roadmap, the Queen's University Research Roadmap for Knowledge Implementation (QuRKI) that outlines three major phases of linked research and implementation activity: (1) issue identification/clarification; (2) solution building; and (3) implementation, evaluation, and nurturing the change.In this paper, we describe our practical experience as researchers working at point‐of‐care and how research can be used to facilitate the implementation of evidence. An exemplar is used to illustrate the fluid interplay of research and implementation activities and present the range of supporting research.Implications: QuRKI serves as a guide for researchers in the formation of a strategic alliance with the practice community for undertaking evidence‐informed reorganization of care. Using this collaborative approach, researchers play an integral role in focusing on, and using evidence during all discussions. We welcome further evaluation of its usefulness in the field.