Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26734368›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2015

Improving critical care discharge summaries: a collaborative quality improvement project using PDSA.

Lucy Goulding, Hannah Parke, Ritesh Maharaj, Robert Loveridge, Anne McLoone, Sophie Hadfield, Eloise Helme, Philip Hopkins, Jane Sandall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Intensive care discharge summaries for general practice staff: a focus group study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors.

Lucy GouldingKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Hannah ParkeKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Ritesh MaharajKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Robert LoveridgeKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Anne McLooneKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Sophie HadfieldKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Eloise HelmeKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Philip HopkinsKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.
Jane SandallKing's Improvement Science, King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Around 110,000 people spend time in critical care units in England and Wales each year. The transition of care from the intensive care unit to the general ward exposes patients to potential harms from changes in healthcare providers and environment. Nurses working on general wards report anxiety and uncertainty when receiving patients from critical care. An innovative form of enhanced capability critical care outreach called 'iMobile' is being provided at King's College Hospital (KCH). Part of the remit of iMobile is to review patients who have been transferred from critical care to general wards. The iMobile team wished to improve the quality of critical care discharge summaries. A collaborative evidence-based quality improvement project was therefore undertaken by the iMobile team at KCH in conjunction with researchers from King's Improvement Science (KIS). Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) methodology was used. Three PDSA cycles were undertaken. Methods adopted comprised: a scoping literature review to identify relevant guidelines and research evidence to inform all aspects of the quality improvement project; a process mapping exercise; informal focus groups / interviews with staff; patient story-telling work with people who had experienced critical care and subsequent discharge to a general ward; and regular audits of the quality of both medical and nursing critical care discharge summaries. The following behaviour change interventions were adopted, taking into account evidence of effectiveness from published systematic reviews and considering the local context: regular audit and feedback of the quality of discharge summaries, feedback of patient experience, and championing and education delivered by local opinion leaders. The audit results were mixed across the trajectory of the project, demonstrating the difficulty of sustaining positive change. This was particularly important as critical care bed occupancy and through-put fluctuates which then impacts on work-load, with new cohorts of staff regularly passing through critical care. In addition to presenting the results of this quality improvement project, we also reflect on the lessons learned and make suggestions for future projects.

Identifiers

PMID26734368
PMCPMC4645923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.