Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28877944›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Effects of external inspection on sepsis detection and treatment: a study protocol for a quasiexperimental study with a stepped-wedge design.

Einar Hovlid, Jan C Frich, Kieran Walshe, Roy M Nilsen, Hans Kristian Flaatten, Geir Sverre Braut, Jon Helgeland, Inger Lise Teig, Stig Harthug

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. It is linked to trial NCT02747121 (Effects of External Inspection on Sepsis Detection and Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT02747121 nacompletednot on this map

Effects of External Inspection on Sepsis Detection and Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorwegian Board of Health SupervisionRan2016 to 2020Enrolled7,407ConditionsSepsisArmsExternal inspection of health services
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Einar HovlidDepartment of Social Science, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Sogndal and Norwegian Board of Health Supervision, Oslo, Norway.
Jan C FrichInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kieran WalsheHealth Management Group, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Roy M NilsenDepartment of Health and Social Sciences, Department of Research and Development, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Hans Kristian FlaattenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Clinical Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Geir Sverre BrautDepartment of research, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger; Norwegian Board of Health Supervision, Oslo, Norway.
Jon HelgelandQuality Measurement Unit, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Inger Lise TeigDepartment of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Stig HarthugDepartment of Research and Development, Department of Clinical Science, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Haukeland University Hospital, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
University of Bergen · NOWestern Norway University of Applied Sciences · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NONorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOStavanger University Hospital · NOUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInspections are widely used in health care as a means to improve the health services delivered to patients. Despite their widespread use, there is little evidence of their effect. The mechanisms for how inspections can promote change are poorly understood. In this study, we use a national inspection campaign of sepsis detection and initial treatment in hospitals as case to: (1) Explore how inspections affect the involved organizations. (2) Evaluate what effect external inspections have on the process of delivering care to patients, measured by change in indicators reflecting how sepsis detection and treatment is carried out. (3) Evaluate whether external inspections affect patient outcomes, measured as change in the 30-day mortality rate and length of hospital stay. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The intervention that we study is inspections of sepsis detection and treatment in hospitals. The intervention will be rolled out sequentially during 12 months to 24 hospitals. Our effect measures are change on indicators related to the detection and treatment of sepsis, the 30-day mortality rate and length of hospital stay. We collect data from patient records at baseline, before the inspections, and at 8 and 14 months after the inspections. We use logistic regression models and linear regression models to compare the various effect measurements between the intervention and control periods. All the models will include time as a covariate to adjust for potential secular changes in the effect measurements during the study period. We collect qualitative data before and after the inspections, and we will conduct a thematic content analysis to explore how inspections affect the involved organisations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has obtained ethical approval by the Regional Ethics Committee of Norway Nord and the Norwegian Data Protection Authority. It is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02747121). Results will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.

trial registrationNCT02747121; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Research DesignHospitalsHumansLength of StayLinear ModelsLogistic ModelsNorwayQuality ImprovementSepsiseffectexternal inspectionregulationsepsisstepped wedge design

Identifiers

PMID28877944
PMCPMC5589010
OpenAlexW2753871778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.