Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29668717›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Using the Normalization Process Theory to qualitatively explore sense-making in implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme: "It's not rocket science".

Eileen Sutton, Georgia Herbert, Sorrel Burden, Stephen Lewis, Steve Thomas, Andy Ness, Charlotte Atkinson

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Eileen SuttonNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4105-8471
Georgia HerbertNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Sorrel BurdenNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Stephen LewisNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Steve ThomasNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andy NessNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Charlotte AtkinsonNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (Nutrition Theme) at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme (ERAS) is an approach to the perioperative care of patients encompassing multiple interventions and involving a wide range of different actors. It can thus be defined as a complex intervention. Despite the strength of the evidence-base in its support, the implementation of ERAS has been slow. This paper specifically explores the utility of Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a methodological framework to aid exploration of ERAS implementation, with a focus on the core NPT construct coherence. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study employed qualitative methods guided by NPT. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-six healthcare professionals working in three specialities (thoracic, colorectal, head and neck) in a UK hospital. Data were analysed using an adapted Framework Approach.

resultsCoherence, or sense-making work, was key to successful implementation and demonstrated in the importance of participants believing in ERAS both as an individual and as a team. In order to invest in ERAS individuals needed to be able to differentiate its practices favourably with those enacted pre-implementation (differentiation). Participants also needed to understand their specific tasks and responsibilities (individual specification) and build a shared understanding (communal specification), resolving differences in planning meetings. Belief in the worth of ERAS was often aligned to evidence for its effectiveness or benefit to patients (internalization), so implementing ERAS therefore 'made sense'. Sense-making work had strong links with aspects of implementation related to other NPT constructs including resource issues such as funding for data collection and feedback (reflexive monitoring: systemization) and failure to replace key staff members (collective action: skill set workability).

conclusionsNPT was found to be a valuable heuristic device to employ in the exploration of ERAS implementation processes. NPT was useful in facilitating recognition of the importance of coherence work to successful implementation. However despite participants' strong beliefs in the worth of ERAS, it was in translating these beliefs into action that barriers were encountered, highlighting the interconnectedness of NPT constructs and the complicated nature of implementing complex interventions.

Identifiers

PMID29668717
PMCPMC5906013

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.