Trial reportImplementation science : IS2018
Improving care at scale: process evaluation of a multi-component quality improvement intervention to reduce mortality after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH trial).
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 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 49 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reading Difficulties in Individuals with Homonymous Visual Field Defects: A Systematic Review of Reported Interventions.Neuropsychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Protocolized care pathways in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries.The British journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- The development of the concept of return-on-investment from large-scale quality improvement programmes in healthcare: an integrative systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Identifying and understanding benefits associated with return-on-investment from large-scale healthcare Quality Improvement programmes: an integrative systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)-avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS.Implementation science : IS · 2022Trial
- Process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve bronchiolitis management - a PREDICT mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Implementation of a complex intervention to improve hospital discharge: process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2021Trial
- A comparison of intensive vs. light-touch quality improvement interventions for maternal health in Uttar Pradesh, India.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- The Dissemination of Standardised Care Protocol Guidelines for High-Risk Emergency Abdominal Surgery Patients in Denmark.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Quality, not just data: Implementing NELA for safer emergency laparotomy care.Journal of perioperative practice · 2026Article
- Implementing quality improvement in vascular services: a qualitative study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Do process evaluations open up the 'black box' of implementation interventions in health care? A scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Lessons from using the Normalisation Process Theory to understand adherence to guidance on MgSOImplementation science communications · 2025Article
- Article
- Implementing a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) service: A guide for clinical leaders.Australasian journal on ageing · 2025Article
- Article
- Five principles to prioritise in small-scale surgical quality improvement: a qualitative study of the views of surgical improvement leaders.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving the quality and safety of perioperative care is a global priority. The Enhanced Peri-Operative Care for High-risk patients (EPOCH) trial was a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial of a quality improvement (QI) programme to improve 90-day survival for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in 93 hospitals in the UK National Health Service.
methodsThe aim of this process evaluation is to describe how the EPOCH intervention was planned, delivered and received, at both cluster and local hospital levels. The QI programme comprised of two interventions: a care pathway and a QI intervention to aid pathway implementation, focussed on stakeholder engagement, QI teamwork, data analysis and feedback and applying the model for improvement. Face-to-face training and online resources were provided to support senior clinicians in each hospital (QI leads) to lead improvement. For this evaluation, we collated programme activity data, administered an exit questionnaire to QI leads and collected ethnographic data in six hospitals. Qualitative data were analysed with thematic or comparative analysis; quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsThe EPOCH trial did not demonstrate any improvement in survival or length of hospital stay. Whilst the QI programme was delivered as planned at the cluster level, self-assessed intervention fidelity at the hospital level was variable. Seventy-seven of 93 hospitals responded to the exit questionnaire (60 from a single QI lead response on behalf of the team); 33 respondents described following the QI intervention closely (35%) and there were only 11 of 37 care pathway processes that > 50% of respondents reported attempting to improve. Analysis of qualitative data suggests QI leads were often attempting to deliver the intervention in challenging contexts: the social aspects of change such as engaging colleagues were identified as important but often difficult and clinicians frequently attempted to lead change with limited time or organisational resources.
conclusionsSignificant organisational challenges faced by QI leads shaped their choice of pathway components to focus on and implementation approaches taken. Adaptation causing loss of intervention fidelity was therefore due to rational choices made by those implementing change within constrained contexts. Future large-scale QI programmes will need to focus on dedicating local time and resources to improvement as well as on training to develop QI capabilities. EPOCH
trial registrationISRCTN80682973 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN80682973 Registered 27 February 2014 and Lancet protocol 13PRT/7655.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.