Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27852320›Full record

Observational studyImplementation science : IS2016

A complex endeavour: an ethnographic study of the implementation of the Sepsis Six clinical care bundle.

Carolyn Tarrant, Barbara O'Donnell, Graham Martin, Julian Bion, Alison Hunter, Kevin D Rooney

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Implementation science : IS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Implementation research in Primary Care (Part 2): How to conduct implementation research?Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Medical Perspective on a Disease Life Cycle. Sepsis in the Realm of Implementation Science.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2018
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Carolyn TarrantSAPPHIRE, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. ccp3@le.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7356-5342
Barbara O'DonnellInstitute of Healthcare Policy and Practice, School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.
Graham MartinSAPPHIRE, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Julian BionUniversity Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alison HunterHealthcare Improvement Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Kevin D RooneyInstitute of Healthcare Policy and Practice, School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation of the 'Sepsis Six' clinical care bundle within an hour of recognition of sepsis is recommended as an approach to reduce mortality in patients with sepsis, but achieving reliable delivery of the bundle has proved challenging. There remains little understanding of the barriers to reliable implementation of bundle components. We examined frontline clinical practice in implementing the Sepsis Six.

methodsWe conducted an ethnographic study in six hospitals participating in the Scottish Patient Safety Programme Sepsis collaborative. We conducted around 300 h of non-participant observation in emergency departments, acute medical receiving units and medical and surgical wards. We interviewed a purposive sample of 43 members of hospital staff. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach.

resultsImplementation strategies to promote reliable use of the Sepsis Six primarily focused on education, engaging and motivating staff, and providing prompts for behaviour, along with efforts to ensure that equipment required was readily available. Although these strategies were successful in raising staff awareness of sepsis and engagement with implementation, our study identified that completing the bundle within an hour was not straightforward. Our emergent theory suggested that rather than being an apparently simple sequence of six steps, the Sepsis Six actually involved a complex trajectory comprising multiple interdependent tasks that required prioritisation and scheduling, and which was prone to problems of coordination and operational failures. Interventions that involved allocating specific roles and responsibilities for completing the Sepsis Six in ways that reduced the need for coordination and task switching, and the use of process mapping to identify system failures along the trajectory, could help mitigate against some of these problems.

conclusionsImplementation efforts that focus on individual behaviour change to improve uptake of the Sepsis Six should be supplemented by an understanding of the bundle as a complex trajectory of work in which improving reliability requires attention to coordination of workflow, as well as addressing the mundane problems of interruptions and operational failures that obstruct task completion.

Indexed as

Patient Care BundlesDelivery of Health CareGrounded TheoryHospitalizationHumansMedical Staff, HospitalProfessional PracticeQuality ImprovementScotlandSepsis

Identifiers

PMID27852320
PMCPMC5112724

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.