Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30305088›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2018

Participatory design of an improvement intervention for the primary care management of possible sepsis using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method.

Duncan McNab, John Freestone, Chris Black, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Paul Bowie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Using Safety-I, II, and III to level up patient safety.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Using FRAM visualisations in quality improvement projects: identifying and testing strategies to improve anticoagulant use in the perioperative process.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Duncan McNabNHS Education for Scotland, 2 Central Quay, Glasgow, Scotland, G3 8BW, UK. Duncan.mcnab@nes.scot.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0512-0629
John FreestoneNHS Ayrshire and Arran, Ayr, UK.
Chris BlackNHS Education for Scotland, 2 Central Quay, Glasgow, Scotland, G3 8BW, UK.
Andrew Carson-StevensDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Paul BowieNHS Education for Scotland, 2 Central Quay, Glasgow, Scotland, G3 8BW, UK.
NHS Ayrshire and Arran · GBNHS Education for Scotland · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnsuring effective identification and management of sepsis is a healthcare priority in many countries. Recommendations for sepsis management in primary care have been produced, but in complex healthcare systems, an in-depth understanding of current system interactions and functioning is often essential before improvement interventions can be successfully designed and implemented. A structured participatory design approach to model a primary care system was employed to hypothesise gaps between work as intended and work delivered to inform improvement and implementation priorities for sepsis management.

methodsIn a Scottish regional health authority, multiple stakeholders were interviewed and the records of patients admitted from primary care to hospital with possible sepsis analysed. This identified the key work functions required to manage these patients successfully, the influence of system conditions (such as resource availability) and the resulting variability of function output. This information was used to model the system using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM). The multiple stakeholder interviews also explored perspectives on system improvement needs which were subsequently themed. The FRAM model directed an expert group to reconcile improvement suggestions with current work systems and design an intervention to improve clinical management of sepsis.

resultsFourteen key system functions were identified, and a FRAM model was created. Variability was found in the output of all functions. The overall system purpose and improvement priorities were agreed. Improvement interventions were reconciled with the FRAM model of current work to understand how best to implement change, and a multi-component improvement intervention was designed.

conclusionsTraditional improvement approaches often focus on individual performance or a specific care process, rather than seeking to understand and improve overall performance in a complex system. The construction of the FRAM model facilitated an understanding of the complexity of interactions within the current system, how system conditions influence everyday sepsis management and how proposed interventions would work within the context of the current system. This directed the design of a multi-component improvement intervention that organisations could locally adapt and implement with the aim of improving overall system functioning and performance to improve sepsis management.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansPrimary Health CareSepsisComplexityFunctional resonance analysis methodPrimary careQuality improvementSepsis

Identifiers

PMID30305088
PMCPMC6180427
OpenAlexW2893632662

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.