Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28385912›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Translating concerns into action: a detailed qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary intervention on medical wards.

Samuel Pannick, Stephanie Archer, Maximillian J Johnston, Iain Beveridge, Susannah Jane Long, Thanos Athanasiou, Nick Sevdalis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Employee-Driven Innovation in Health Organizations: Insights From a Scoping Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel PannickNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College, London, UK s.pannick@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9381-5556
Stephanie ArcherNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College, London, UK.
Maximillian J JohnstonNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College, London, UK.
Iain BeveridgeDepartment of Medicine, West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Susannah Jane LongNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College, London, UK.
Thanos AthanasiouDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK.
Nick SevdalisCentre for Implementation Science, King's College, London, UK.
NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBWest Middlesex University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand how frontline reports of day-to-day care failings might be better translated into improvement.

designQualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary team intervention capitalising on the frontline experience of care delivery. Prospective clinical team surveillance (PCTS) involved structured interdisciplinary briefings to capture challenges in care delivery, facilitated organisational escalation of the issues they identified, and feedback. Eighteen months of ethnography and two focus groups were conducted with staff taking part in a trial of PCTS.

resultsPCTS fostered psychological safety-a confidence that the team would not embarrass or punish those who speak up. This was complemented by a hard edge of accountability, whereby team members would regulate their own behaviour in anticipation of future briefings. Frontline concerns were triaged to managers, or resolved autonomously by ward teams, reversing what had been well-established normalisations of deviance. Junior clinicians found a degree of catharsis in airing their concerns, and their teams became more proactive in addressing improvement opportunities. PCTS generated tangible organisational changes, and enabled managers to make a convincing case for investment. However, briefings were constrained by the need to preserve professional credibility, and staff found some comfort in avoiding accountability . At higher organisational levels, frontline concerns were subject to competition with other priorities, and their resolution was limited by the scale of the challenges they described.

conclusionsProspective safety strategies relying on staff-volunteered data produce acceptable, negotiated accounts, subject to the many interdisciplinary tensions that characterise ward work. Nonetheless, these strategies give managers access to the realities of frontline cares, and support frontline staff to make incremental changes in their daily work. These are goals for learning healthcare organisations.

trial registrationISRCTN 34806867.

Indexed as

FeedbackPatient Care TeamQuality ImprovementDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHospital UnitsHumansLondonMedical Staff, HospitalNursing Staff, HospitalQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomhealthcare qualityinterdisciplinary teamsmedical wardpatient safetyprospective surveillance

Identifiers

PMID28385912
PMCPMC5719651
OpenAlexW2605183543

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.