Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24694305›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

Barriers to implementation of a redesign of information transfer and feedback in acute care: results from a multiple case study.

Janneke E van Leijen-Zeelenberg, Arno J A van Raak, Inge G P Duimel-Peeters, Mariëlle E A L Kroese, Peter R G Brink, Dirk Ruwaard, Hubertus J M Vrijhoef

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Janneke E van Leijen-ZeelenbergDepartment of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. j.vanleijen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Arno J A van Raak
Inge G P Duimel-Peeters
Mariëlle E A L Kroese
Peter R G Brink
Dirk Ruwaard
Hubertus J M Vrijhoef

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate information transfer is an important element of continuity of care and patient safety. Despite the demonstrated urge for improvement of communication in acute care, there is a lack of data on improvements of communication. This study aims to describe the barriers to implementation of a redesign of the existing model for information transfer and feedback.

methodsA case study with six cases (i.e. acute care chains), using mixed methods was carried out in the Netherlands. The redesign was implemented in one acute care chain while the five other acute care chains served as control groups. Focus group interviews were held with members of the acute care chains and questionnaires were sent to care providers working in the acute care chains.

resultsRespondents reported three sets of barriers for implementation of the model: (a) existing routines for information transfer and feedback in organizations within the acute care chain; (b) barriers related to the implementation method and time period; and (c) the absence of a high 'sense of urgency' amongst providers in the acute care chain which would aid in improving the communication process.

conclusionsThis study shows that organizational factors play an important role in the success or failure of redesigning a communication process. Organizational routines can hamper implementation of a redesign if it differs too much from the routines of care providers involved. Besides focussing on provider characteristics in the implementation of a redesigned process, specific attention should be paid to unlearning existing organizational routines.

Indexed as

CommunicationContinuity of Patient CareEmergency MedicineFeedbackFocus GroupsHumansModels, OrganizationalNetherlandsOrganizational Case StudiesPatient SafetyQuality ImprovementSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24694305
PMCPMC3974919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.