Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28927439›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2017

Barriers and facilitators towards implementing the Sepsis Six care bundle (BLISS-1): a mixed methods investigation using the theoretical domains framework.

Neil Roberts, Guy Hooper, Fabiana Lorencatto, Wendell Storr, Michael Spivey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

5 authors.

Neil RobertsDepartments of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3LJ, UK. neil.roberts8@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3518-6813
Guy HooperDepartments of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3LJ, UK.
Fabiana LorencattoCentre for Health Services Research and Management, School of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.
Wendell StorrDepartments of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3LJ, UK.
Michael SpiveyDepartments of Critical Care and Anaesthesia, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3LJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 'Sepsis 6', a care bundle of basic, but vital, measures (e.g. intravenous fluid, antibiotics) has been implemented to improve sepsis treatment. However, uptake has been variable. Tools from behavioral sciences, such as the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) may be used to understand and address such implementation issues. This study used a behavioral science approach to identify barriers and facilitators towards Sepsis Six implementation at a case study hospital.

methodsSemi-structured interviews based on the TDF were conducted with a sample group of consultants, junior doctors and nurses from Emergency Department, Medical and Surgical Admissions, to explore barriers/facilitators to Sepsis Six performance. Transcripts were analyzed following the combined principles of content and framework analysis. Emerging themes informed a questionnaire to explore generalizability and importance across a sample of 261 stakeholders. Median importance and agreement ratings for each theme were calculated overall and for each role and clinical area. These were used to identify important barriers and important facilitators as targets for performance improvement.

resultsNo new belief statements were discovered and data saturation was deemed achieved after 10 interviews. 1699 utterances were coded into 64 belief statements, then collated into a 51-item questionnaire. 113 questionnaire responses were obtained (44.3% response rate). Important barriers included insufficient audit and feedback, poor teamwork and communication, concerns about using the Sepsis Six in certain patients, insufficient training, and resource concerns. Facilitators included confidence in knowledge and skills, beliefs in overall benefits of the bundle, beliefs that identification and management of septic patients fell within everyone's role, and that regular use of the bundle made it easier to remember. Some beliefs were applicable for the entire group, others were specific to particular staff groups. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsA range of barriers and facilitators towards Sepsis Six performance across different staff groups were systematically identified using a theoretically-informed approach. This can inform development of targeted performance improvement interventions.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalModels, TheoreticalAdolescentAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care BundlesSepsisSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsBarriersFacilitatorsImplementationQuality improvementSepsisTheoretical domains framework

Identifiers

PMID28927439
PMCPMC5606082

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.