ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2013
Prompting physicians to address a daily checklist for antibiotics: do we need a co-pilot in the ICU?
Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A voice-based digital assistant for intelligent prompting of evidence-based practices during ICU rounds.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
- Measuring Performance on the ABCDEF Bundle During Interprofessional Rounds via a Nurse-Based Assessment Tool.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewFailed opportunities to reduce morbidity and mortality occur when evidence-based therapies are not fully implemented in clinical practice. We reviewed the recent literature on implementation strategies in the intensive care unit, with particular attention to antibiotic therapy. RECENT
findingsEmphasis in implementation science has shifted to new models that focus more on direct, point-of-care interaction with providers as opposed to an administrative or top-down approach. Prompting physicians to use a multifaceted checklist was associated with a decrease in severity-adjusted mortality and length of stay. The majority of the benefit appears to correlate with decreased use of empirical antibiotics. A subsequent study demonstrated that face-to-face prompting regarding empirical antibiotics alone was still superior to an electronic checklist, but that long-term changes in use of empirical antibiotics resulted from the previous prompting study. Other studies demonstrate that checklists result in enhanced communication between caregivers, which may be a major explanation for their benefit. SUMMARY: Newer implementation strategies focused on real-time, point-of-care interventions have been associated with greater impact. The most common of these new interventions is use of checklists. Greater checklist use has led to the realization that a prompting or forcing function is required for optimal benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.