Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28039297›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Realistic evaluation of Situation Awareness for Everyone (SAFE) on paediatric wards: study protocol.

J Deighton, J Edbrooke-Childs, E Stapley, N Sevdalis, J Hayes, D Gondek, E Sharples, P Lachman

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Factors to consider in the introduction of huddles on clinical wards: perceptions of staff on the SAFE programme.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

J DeightonEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and families, London, UK.
J Edbrooke-ChildsEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and families, London, UK.
E StapleyEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and families, London, UK.
N SevdalisHealth Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Implementation Science, Kings College London, London, UK.
J HayesDepartment of Psychology, University of Roehampton, London, UK.
D GondekEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and families, London, UK.
E SharplesEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and families, London, UK.
P LachmanInternational Society for Quality in Health Care, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEvidence suggests that health outcomes for hospitalised children in the UK are worse than other countries in Europe, with an estimated 1500 preventable deaths in hospital each year. It is presumed that some of these deaths are due to unanticipated deterioration, which could have been prevented by earlier intervention, for example, sepsis. The Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) intervention aims to redirect the 'clinical gaze' to encompass a range of prospective indicators of risk or deterioration, including clinical indicators and staff concerns, so that professionals can review relevant information for any given situation. Implementing the routine use of huddles is central to increasing situation awareness in SAFE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this article, we describe the realistic evaluation framework within which we are evaluating the SAFE programme. Multiple methods and data sources are used to help provide a comprehensive understanding of what mechanisms for change are triggered by an intervention and how they have an impact on the existing social processes sustaining the behaviour or circumstances that are being targeted for change. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from London-Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (14/LO/0875). It is anticipated that the findings will enable us to understand what the important elements of SAFE and the huddle are, the processes by which they might be effective and-given the short timeframes of the project-initial effects of the intervention on outcomes. The present research will add to the extant literature by providing the first evidence of implementation of SAFE and huddles in paediatric wards in the UK.

Indexed as

Hospitals, PediatricAwarenessChildChild, HospitalizedClinical ProtocolsCritical IllnessDisease ProgressionEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleHumansMaleOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient Care TeamProgram EvaluationSepsisUnited KingdomPAEDIATRICS

Identifiers

PMID28039297
PMCPMC5223678

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.