Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30094282›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2018

Measuring the Delivery of Complex Interventions through Electronic Medical Records: Challenges and Lessons Learned.

Beth Prusaczyk, Vanessa Fabbre, Christopher R Carpenter, Enola Proctor

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2018. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

Beth PrusaczykVanderbilt University Medical Center, US.ORCID 0000-0001-8495-0836
Vanessa FabbreWashington University in St. Louis, US.
Christopher R CarpenterWashington University in St. Louis, US.
Enola ProctorWashington University in St. Louis, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth services and implementation researchers often seek to capture the implementation process of complex interventions yet explicit guidance on how to capture this process is limited. Medical record review is a commonly used methodology, especially when used as a proxy for provider behavior, with recognized benefits and limitations. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of chart review to measure implementation and offer recommendations for future researchers using this method to capture the implementation process.

methodsGrounded in qualitative research methods, we measured the implementation of a transitional care intervention for older adults with dementia being discharged from the hospital. We adapted the operationalization of the intervention's components to suit chart review methods, sought input from hospital providers before and after data collection, and assessed the agreement between the results of our chart review and provider-report.

findingsWe believe chart review can be used effectively as a method for capturing the implementation process and provide future researchers with a list of recommendations based on our experience including understanding the nuance between data extraction versus data abstraction, allowing for large amounts of data not pre-specified in the data collection instrument to be collected, and purposefully and iteratively engaging the providers who are entering data into the chart. MAJOR THEMES: Measuring the implementation of complex interventions is a cornerstone in health services research and with the relative convenience and low costs of using chart data, we believe with more use and refinement this methodology could emerge as a valuable and widely used method in the field.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHealth Services ResearchImplementation ScienceQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID30094282
PMCPMC6078114

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.