Change is basically the alteration of something to make its appearance or form different from the original. Change may take two forms, planned or unplanned form. Unplanned changes may end up to unpredictable and wavering results, while on the other hand, planned changes are basically a series of events that are employed to achieve established goals and objectives. Changes in nursing are explained by several theories.
Lewin’s Theory
This is a theory that was fashioned and explained by Kurt Lewin. It is extensively incorporated in nursing operations. Lewin’s theory is dependent on the presence of both driving and resistant forces. In this case, the driving forces entail the existing change agents which compel and coerce employees towards change. On the other hand, the resistant forces are the group of nurses and the workforce who stands in disagreement and who antagonize the suggested change. To achieve success in the lewins tails heory, it is undeniable that the driving force ought to dominate and overshadow the resistant force.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rodgers’ Change Theory
The theory proposed by Rodgers is generally an upgrade and modification of the Lewin’s theory. It is supported and embedded by five stages. They constitute mindfulness, interest, valuation, execution and acceptance. In most cases, this theory is practical and functional on changes that are deliberated for long term purposes. Its success is achieved when nurses and the workforce who had previously ignored the suggested stage adopt it, mainly because of the positive comments of other nurses who had sanctioned change (Peate, 2010).
With the EBP project, it is imperative to clench a comprehensive plan for ultimate success. As that goes by, using Lewin’s change management theory can help promote acceptance by frontline nurses by involving them in every aspect of the planning and implementation process.
Reference
Peate, I. (2010). Pioneering Theories in NursingPioneering Theories in Nursing. Nursing Standard , 24 (43), 30-30. doi: 10.7748/ns2010.06.24.43.30.b1075
