Within the framework of the current project, it may be proposed to implement the PDSA cycle to support change and revise the approach to the issue at hand with the help of on-the-fly transformations intended to support the idea that fewer chemical restraints would have a positive effect on middle-aged patients. The key advantage of PDSA that may be mentioned here is the fact that it does not require an extended amount of resources to be implemented, and also does not force the team to conduct large-scale implementation (Leis & Shojania, 2017). Therefore, the PDSA change model is going to become the quickest method of practice change that can be utilized to answer the chosen PICOT question.
In order to institutionalize the potential improvements through the modification of systems, structure, and processes, the team will have to put the influence of chemical restraints at the forefront of the project and have the care team learn more about how they could improve patient outcomes with the help of reducing the influence of chemicals on their health. The systems should be modified to an extent where they would consist of measures that define, measure and improve the quality of care. The structure of care provision could be changed with the help of long-term activities aimed at the creation of a much more enabling environment where every stakeholder would have a chance to contribute. Ultimately, the processes will be institutionalized through the transformation of staff roles and responsibilities and the thorough implementation of support functions.
The staff will have to engage in a number of training sessions intended to explain the rationale behind introducing chemical restraints and comparing their milder and severer effects to decide on how effective chemical restraints actually are. The author of the current presentation proposes to conduct training within the general workplace environment and not pick any custom location, as it would put a strain on organizational resources. Another idea is to deploy a committee that will be responsible for checking in with the team and study participants.
The policy on chemical restraints would have to include information on how care providers could protect patients from the negative effects of chemical restraints, and what could be the key approaches to removing patient distress and making the sample much more representative. The team should be aiming at finding the least restrictive methods of managing one’s health condition and curtail the usage of chemical restraints (Cunha et al., 2016). Further activities might include the adoption of a prevention framework that would reduce the majority of risk factors and help practitioners establish an accommodating care environment.
The required documentation should include the reasons for the cessation of chemical restraints. These documents will be reviewed in detail during restraint review meetings intended to provide every stakeholder with proper insights. The utmost potential of practice change is also supported by the idea that the review process could include family members or patients themselves, as they would also have the opportunity to fill in surveys and help identify more potential challenges that could affect the proposed change program.
Even though there are no overt barriers that could affect the deployment of the proposed study, it may be claimed that the researchers could face increased reluctance on the patient side due to the lack of understanding. This also sends the researcher back to the idea that patients should be included in the list of individuals who may be able to contribute to study outcomes (Fashaw et al., 2020). Patient reluctance could easily invalidate research results, so it is essential to receive approval from every stakeholder before moving forward.
References
Cunha, M., Andre, S., Bica, I., Ribeiro, O., Dias, A., & Andrade, A. (2016). Chemical and physical restraint of patients. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 389-399.
Fashaw, S., Chisholm, L., Mor, V., Meyers, D. J., Liu, X., Gammonley, D., & Thomas, K. (2020). Inappropriate antipsychotic use: The impact of nursing home socioeconomic and racial composition. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68(3), 630-636.
Leis, J. A., & Shojania, K. G. (2017). A primer on PDSA: Executing plan–do–study–act cycles in practice, not just in name. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(7), 572-577.