Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28693596›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2017

Prioritising Responses Of Nurses To deteriorating patient Observations (PRONTO) protocol: testing the effectiveness of a facilitation intervention in a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial with an embedded process evaluation and cost analysis.

Tracey K Bucknall, Gill Harvey, Julie Considine, Imogen Mitchell, Jo Rycroft-Malone, Ian D Graham, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Jennifer Watts, Alison M Hutchinson

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Tracey K BucknallDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. tracey.bucknall@deakin.edu.au.
Gill HarveyAdelaide Nursing School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
Julie ConsidineDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Imogen MitchellOffice of the Dean, Australian National University Medical School, Acton, ACT, 0200, Australia.
Jo Rycroft-MaloneSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research, Bangor University, Ffriddoedd Road, Bangor, LL572EF, UK.
Ian D GrahamDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Mohammadreza MohebbiFaculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Jennifer WattsCentre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Alison M HutchinsonDeakin University, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety Research, Faculty of Health, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Deakin University · AUAustralian National University · AUBangor University · GBEastern Health · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AUUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVital signs are the primary indicator of physiological status and for determining the need for urgent clinical treatment. Yet, if physiological signs of deterioration are missed, misinterpreted or mismanaged, then critical illness, unplanned intensive care admissions, cardiac arrest and death may ensue. Although evidence demonstrates the benefit of early recognition and management of deteriorating patients, failure to escalate care and manage deteriorating patients remains a relatively frequent occurrence in hospitals. METHODS/

designA pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial design will be used to measure clinical effectiveness and cost of a facilitation intervention to improve nurses' vital sign measurement, interpretation, treatment and escalation of care for patients with abnormal vital signs. A cost consequence analysis will evaluate the intervention cost and effectiveness, and a process evaluation will determine how the implementation of the intervention contributes to outcomes. We will compare clinical outcomes and costs from standard implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to facilitated implementation of CPGs. The primary outcome will be adherence to the CPGs by nurses, as measured by escalation of care as per organisational policy. The study will be conducted in four Australian major metropolitan teaching hospitals. In each hospital, eight to ten wards will be randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. Control wards will receive standard implementation of CPGs, while intervention wards will receive standard CPG implementation plus facilitation, using facilitation methods and processes tailored to the ward context. The intervention will be administered to all nursing staff at the ward level for 6 months. At each hospital, two types of facilitators will be provided: a hospital-level facilitator as the lead; and two ward-level facilitators for each ward. DISCUSSION: This study uses an innovative, networked approach to facilitation to enable uptake of CPGs. Findings will inform the intervention utility and knowledge translation measurement approaches. If successful, the study methodology and intervention has potential for translation to other health care standards.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12616000544471p.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicVital SignsAustraliaClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisGuideline AdherenceHeart ArrestHospital MortalityHumansNursing Staff, HospitalResearch DesignSingle-Blind MethodTime FactorsClinical decision-makingEconomic analysisFacilitationGuidelinesImplementationKnowledge translationPatient safetyProcess evaluationRandomised controlled trialVital signs

Identifiers

PMID28693596
PMCPMC5504605
OpenAlexW2735199618

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.