Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25528580›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

Collaborating with front-line healthcare professionals: the clinical and cost effectiveness of a theory based approach to the implementation of a national guideline.

Natalie Taylor, Rebecca Lawton, Sally Moore, Joyce Craig, Beverley Slater, Alison Cracknell, John Wright, Mohammed A Mohammed

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Natalie TaylorCentre for Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, UK. n.taylor@mq.edu.au.
Rebecca LawtonInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. r.j.lawton@leeds.ac.uk.
Sally MooreBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK. sally.moore@bthft.nhs.uk.
Joyce CraigYork Health Economics Consortium Limited, Level 2, Market Square, University of York, York, YO10 5NH, England. joyce.craig@york.ac.uk.
Beverley SlaterBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK. beverley.slater@bthft.nhs.uk.
Alison CracknellLeeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. alison.cracknell@leedsth.nhs.uk.
John WrightBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, BD9 6RJ, UK. john.wright@bthft.nhs.uk.
Mohammed A MohammedSchool of Healthcare Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, UK. m.a.mohammed5@bradford.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0108-10049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical guidelines are an integral part of healthcare. Whilst much progress has been made in ensuring that guidelines are well developed and disseminated, the gap between routine clinical practice and current guidelines often remains wide. A key reason for this gap is that implementation of guidelines typically requires a change in the behaviour of healthcare professionals - but the behaviour change component is often overlooked. We adopted the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach for supporting behaviour change required for the uptake of a national patient safety guideline to reduce the risk of feeding through misplaced nasogastric tubes.

methodsThe TDFI approach was used in a pre-post study in three NHS hospitals with a fourth acting as a control (with usual care and no TDFI). The target behavior identified for change was to increase the use of pH testing as the first line method for checking the position of a nasogastric tube. Repeat audits were undertaken in each hospital following intervention implementation. We used Zou's modified Poisson regression approach with robust standard errors to estimate risk ratios for the use of pH testing. The projected return on investment (ROI) was also calculated.

resultsFollowing intervention implementation, the use of pH first line increased significantly across intervention hospitals [risk ratio (95% CI) ranged from 3.1 (1.14 to8.43) p < .05, to 8.14 (3.06 to21.67) p < .001] compared to the control hospital, which remained unchanged [risk ratio (CI) = .77 (.47-1.26) p = .296]. The estimated savings and costs in the first year were £2.56 million and £1.41 respectively, giving an ROI of 82%, and this was projected to increase to 270% over five years.

conclusionThe TDFI approach improved the uptake of a patient safety guideline across three hospitals. The TDFI approach is clinically and cost effective in comparison to the usual practice.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGuidelines as TopicHealth PersonnelPatient SafetyCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansModels, TheoreticalUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25528580
PMCPMC4301624

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.