This is an original excerpt written by our team to show structure, depth and referencing. It is modelled on the course named above but is not a university document. Use samples as a study guide and follow your school's academic integrity policy.
The evidence-based change
The medical-surgical units in this project manage alcohol withdrawal inconsistently: some patients receive scheduled benzodiazepines regardless of symptoms, and others are undertreated until they become agitated. The project introduces a nurse-driven, symptom-triggered protocol using the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar), a 10-item scale for rating withdrawal severity that retains the validity and reliability of the original longer scale (Sullivan et al., 1989). Nurses score the CIWA-Ar at set intervals and give medication when the score reaches the protocol's threshold. The units and figures are illustrative.
Why an implementation framework
Many evidence-based changes fail because of the context they are introduced into. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is one of the most widely used frameworks for assessing those contextual factors. Its 2022 update, based on feedback from experienced users, revised domains and constructs and added attention to innovation recipients and to equity (Damschroder et al., 2022). The updated CFIR has five domains: the innovation, the outer setting, the inner setting, individuals, and the implementation process.
Pre-implementation assessment
Interviews with 12 nurses, 4 hospitalists and 2 pharmacists, together with a review of incident reports, identified the following determinants.
| CFIR domain | Finding | Barrier or facilitator |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation | Strong evidence base; the protocol can be adapted to unit staffing; CIWA-Ar requires the patient to answer questions | Facilitator, with a barrier for patients who can't communicate |
| Outer setting | Regulatory focus on safe opioid and benzodiazepine use | Facilitator |
| Inner setting | Night shift staffing is thin; past protocols "faded after a month" | Barrier |
| Individuals | Some nurses lack confidence scoring tactile and auditory disturbances; hospitalists worry about undertreatment | Barrier |
| Implementation process | No existing champion; no regular data feedback | Barrier |
Matching strategies to determinants
| Barrier | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Nurses' confidence in scoring | Video-based CIWA-Ar training with practice scoring and a competency check |
| Patients who can't answer questions | A clear alternative pathway, with a provider assessment and a different sedation scale |
| Night shift workload | Scoring prompts built into the EHR, timed to existing assessments |
| Hospitalists' concerns | Present the evidence at a medical staff meeting; include a provider escalation step in the protocol |
| Fading over time | Unit champions on every shift; monthly audit-and-feedback reports |
Implementation timeline
- Weeks 1–4: form the implementation team, finalize the protocol with pharmacy and hospitalists, and build EHR prompts.
- Weeks 5–6: train staff and certify competency.
- Weeks 7–18: go live on one unit, with weekly huddles to adapt the process.
- Weeks 19–24: spread to the second unit, adapting based on lessons learned.
Evaluation
- Implementation outcomes: the percentage of eligible patients with CIWA-Ar scores documented on time; nurses' competency rates.
- Clinical outcomes: total benzodiazepine dose per withdrawal episode, rapid response calls for agitation, transfers to intensive care for withdrawal and use of restraints.
- Balancing measure: oversedation events and falls.
Equity consideration
Following the updated CFIR's attention to equity, the team will check whether protocol use and outcomes differ by race, language or insurance status, and will provide the CIWA-Ar questions with interpreter support for patients with limited English proficiency.
References
Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17, Article 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
Sullivan, J. T., Sykora, K., Schneiderman, J., Naranjo, C. A., & Sellers, E. M. (1989). Assessment of alcohol withdrawal: The revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). British Journal of Addiction, 84(11), 1353–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1989.tb00737.x
