New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment

Cite this

Purpose of the Study

The study was purposed to investigate on the enablers and obstacles that are encountered during the execution of guidelines in accordance with the Promoting Action and Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) structure that is deployed as a model for both the examination and interpretation of data concerning the reduction of cardiovascular disease (McKillop, Crisp, & Walsh, 2011). The study seeks to find answers on the reliability of the execution of the model in the administration of risks such as its application in determining and construing cardiovascular threat levels and in the assessment of treatment procedure for the sick people who suffer from cardiovascular infection. The study also investigates the degree of confidence and comprehension of risk reduction of cardiovascular disease by the doctors with the view of confirming whether the guidelines in the framework provide information that may assist in making treatment decisions. After obtaining answers to these questions, users can optimize on the enablers while keeping the barriers at minimal to attain success from the implementation of the framework.

Study Participants

The target population for the research comprised 20 health care nurses, 4 universal practitioners, 5 administrators, and 3 conspirators of the PARIHS model. Hence, the final sample size comprised 32 interviewees. The participants were obtained from the major healthcare units in one of the regions in New Zealand. The selection of the sample participants was based on their (participants) experience in the execution of the framework during their practice. To assist in this process, potential participants were nominated by their colleagues to guarantee maximum representation across all occupational and geographical spheres. After nomination, an email was sent containing information about the study where the nominees were required to reply to the correspondence indicating their willingness to voluntarily participate in the study. Those who replied were authenticated as study participants.


The study was carried out through interviewing the selected participants. Nevertheless, all the interviews were conducted in convenient rooms within the workplaces of the participants. The average period of data collection was 65 minutes for the health care nurses, half an hour for the general practitioners, 30 minutes for the health care administrators, and half an hour for the planners. The questions for the interviews were open-ended in structure. The gathered facts covered the status and ease of use of information that is deployed to direct the participants in executing the model, the expediency of the courses of action for clinical practice, and the enablers and hindrances during the model execution process. The assembled facts were precisely written down.

Findings and Discussion

The study revealed that the guidelines were well distributed throughout the region and that the courses of action were credible in the management of cardiovascular disease. For instance, the nurses expressed that the strategies were relevant and helpful in the computation and understanding of cardiovascular threat levels, the handling of the risk during the initial phase, and in the evaluation of treatment routines for the ailing people. In addition, comprehension of the recommended guidelines equipped the participants with plausible information that could enable them discuss treatment options for their patients. However, based on the research findings and practical experience, clinicians mainly report on the data they obtain from clinical outputs, rather than focusing on health outcomes such as those involved in reducing cardiovascular risk (McKillop et al., 2011).


The results of the findings illustrate the presence of resemblance with my experience in the US concerning the clinical relevance and credibility of the framework in obtaining evidence that may be useful for the management of cardiovascular risk and the review of treatment regimens for the patients. However, there is a huge challenge when it comes to the implementation of this framework in the US clinical setting such as deriving a better explanation of the findings and mapping these findings to specific elements contained in the framework to guide its prospective and practical use.


McKillop, A., Crisp, J., & Walsh, K. (2011). Barriers and Enablers to Implementation of a New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Assessment and Management of Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Health Care: A Template Analysis. Worldviews On Evidence-Based Nursing, 9(3), 159-171.

Cite this paper

Select style


NursingBird. (2022, April 24). New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment. Retrieved from


NursingBird. (2022, April 24). New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment.

Work Cited

"New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment." NursingBird, 24 Apr. 2022,


NursingBird. (2022) 'New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment'. 24 April.


NursingBird. 2022. "New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment." April 24, 2022.

1. NursingBird. "New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment." April 24, 2022.


NursingBird. "New Zealand-Wide Guideline for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment." April 24, 2022.