Assessing the implementation of nurse practitioner-led huddles in long-term care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

In Results, under “Leaders ‘running on quicksand’” (page unavailable), staff describe leaders as role models in setting aside time for huddles. That supports the exemplar aspect, but the passage concerns huddles, not managers prioritising IPC; our copy does not establish that specific practice. (LLM, conf=0.82)

The Results (Inner Setting: Culture) quote a participant saying leadership wanted staff to connect and that staff needed to know what was happening to do so. The Discussion suggests that direct communication from leadership could address a disconnect with staff. Neither passage establishes that managers’ communication actually connected employees with one another. (LLM, conf=0.83)

In Results, “Leaders ‘running on quicksand’” (page not provided), participants said managers should attend huddles when topics concerned managers’ responsibilities, and that their participation could help resolve communication issues. The paper also describes interdisciplinary problem-solving in huddles, but it does not report that IPC was enhanced specifically when managers discussed the roles and responsibilities of different professional groups. (LLM, conf=0.86)

The Results section (“Leaders ‘running on quicksand’”; page unavailable) reports that competing responsibilities made the huddles a lower priority for managers. It does not establish that managers failed to prioritise infection prevention and control (IPC); the intervention studied was staff huddles. (LLM, conf=0.88)

The Results (“Leaders ‘running on quicksand’”; page unavailable) say participants expected managers’ involvement in huddles to help staff communicate and resolve concerns. The paper also reports that huddles supported interdisciplinary connection, but it does not establish that managers’ engagement enhanced IPC; leadership involvement was limited, and some staff were less open when managers attended. (LLM, conf=0.84)

In Results (‘Leaders “running on quicksand”’; page unavailable), participants said management attendance could help resolve issues raised in interdisciplinary huddles and encourage staff participation. The paper reports these as participants’ perceptions, not an established effect; it also notes that staff were sometimes less open when managers attended. Results (‘An opportunity to speak & be heard’; page unavailable) attributes improved connection between disciplines to the huddles, rather than specifically to management’s presence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

In Results, under “Leaders ‘running on quicksand’” (page unavailable), staff describe leaders as role models for making time to attend interdisciplinary huddles and suggest leadership participation would encourage staff participation. Another Results passage says huddles helped staff connect across disciplines. The paper does not establish that role-modelling participation itself enhances interprofessional collaboration. (LLM, conf=0.82)

In Results (‘An opportunity to speak & be heard’; page not provided), staff described interdisciplinary huddles as improving communication and team building. The paper does not establish that prioritising interprofessional collaboration itself enhances collaboration; it reports participants’ perceptions of a specific huddle intervention. (LLM, conf=0.78)

The Results (no page supplied) report that without a supervisor’s buy-in, interdisciplinary huddles may not happen; they also describe huddles as helping staff connect across disciplines. This supports the claim in the specific context of long-term-care huddles, but does not establish that insufficient engagement with interdisciplinary procedures generally hinders interprofessional collaboration. (LLM, conf=0.82)