Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28424074›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Implementation and adaptation of the Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) in five California hospitals: a qualitative research study.

S E Mitchell, G M Weigel, V Laurens, J Martin, B W Jack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Predicting Hospitalization among Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services Users Using Machine Learning Methods.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2023
    Article
  4. Predicting Colorectal Surgery Readmission Risk: a Surgery-Specific Predictive Model.IISE transactions on healthcare systems engineering · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

S E MitchellDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 751 Albany St Dowling building 5th floor south, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. Suzanne.mitchell@bmc.org.
G M WeigelDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 751 Albany St Dowling building 5th floor south, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
V LaurensDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 751 Albany St Dowling building 5th floor south, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
J MartinDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 751 Albany St Dowling building 5th floor south, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
B W JackDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 751 Albany St Dowling building 5th floor south, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProject Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) is an evidence-based strategy to reduce readmissions disseminated and adapted by various health systems across the country. To date, little is known about how adapting Project RED from its original protocol impacts RED implementation and/or sustainability. The goal of this study was to identify and characterize contextual factors influencing how five California hospitals adapted and implemented RED and the subsequent impact on RED program sustainability.

methodsParticipant observation and key informant and focus group interviews with 64 individuals at five California hospitals implementing RED in 2012 and 2013 were conducted. These involved hospital leadership, personnel responsible for Project RED implementation, hospital staff, and clinicians. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach and constant comparative analysis.

resultsBoth internal and external contextual factors were identified that influenced hospitals' decisions on RED adaptation and implementation. These also impacted RED sustainability. External factors included: impending federal penalties for hospitals with high readmission rates targeting specific diagnoses, and access to external funding and technical support to help hospitals implement RED. Internal or organizational level contextual factors included: committed leadership prioritizing Project RED; RED adaptations; depth, accountability and influence of the implementation team; sustainability planning; and hospital culture. Only three of the five hospitals continued Project RED beyond the implementation period.

conclusionsThe sustainability of RED in participating hospitals was only possible when hospitals approached RED implementation as a transformational process rather than a patient safety project, maintained a high level of fidelity to the RED protocol, and had leadership and an implementation team who embraced change and failure in the pursuit of better patient care and outcomes. Hospitals who were unsuccessful in implementing a sustainable RED process lacked all or most of these components in their approach.

Indexed as

HospitalsPatient DischargeProgram DevelopmentCaliforniaFocus GroupsHumansLeadershipOrganizational InnovationPatient SafetyPersonnel, HospitalQualitative ResearchAdaptationDischargeFidelityHospital cultureImplementationLeadershipReadmissionsSustainability

Identifiers

PMID28424074
PMCPMC5397802

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.