ArticleBMC family practice2016
It could be a 'Golden Goose': a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation.
Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2020Pooled it
- Effects and costs of implementing predictive risk stratification in primary care: a randomised stepped wedge trial.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Trial
- Just-in-case medication use by ambulance paramedics responding to end-of-life care in the community: protocol for a multi-method study (RELIEF).British paramedic journal · 2025Article
- Leveraging web-based prediction calculators to set patient expectations for elective spine surgery: a qualitative study to inform implementation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Applying Structural Equation Modelling to Understand the Implementation of Social Distancing in the Professional Lives of Healthcare Workers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to develop an intervention to improve referral and uptake rates for self-management education for patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Emergency admission risk stratification tools in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey of availability and use.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Understanding clinical prediction models as 'innovations': a mixed methods study in UK family practice.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Erratum to: It could be a 'Golden Goose': a qualitative study of views in primary care on an emergency admission risk prediction tool prior to implementation.BMC family practice · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRising demand for health care has prompted interest in new technologies to support a shift of care from hospital to community and primary care, which may require clinicians to undertake new working practices. A predictive risk stratification tool (Prism) was developed for use in primary care to estimate patients' risk of an emergency hospital admission. As part of an evaluation of Prism, we aimed to understand what might be needed to bring Prism into effective use by exploring clinicians and practice managers' attitudes and expectations about using it. We were informed by Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) which examines the work needed to bring an innovation into use.
methodsWe conducted 4 focus groups and 10 interviews with a total of 43 primary care doctors and colleagues from 32 general practices. All were recorded and transcribed. Analysis focussed in particular on the construct of 'coherence' within NPT, which examines how people understand an innovation and its purpose.
resultsRespondents were in agreement that Prism was a technological formalisation of existing practice, and that it would function as a support to clinical judgment, rather than replacing it. There was broad consensus about the role it might have in delivering new models of care based on active management, but there were doubts about the scope for making a difference to some patients and about whether Prism could identify at-risk patients not already known to the clinical team. Respondents did not expect using the tool to be onerous, but were concerned about the work which might follow in delivering care. Any potential value would not be of the tool in isolation, but would depend on the availability of support services.
conclusionsPolicy imperatives and the pressure of rising demand meant respondents were open to trying out Prism, despite underlying uncertainty about what difference it could make.
trial registrationControlled Clinical Trials no. ISRCTN55538212 .
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.