Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30424818›Full record

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).

T J Stephens, C J Peden, R M Pearse, S E Shaw, T E F Abbott, E L Jones, D Kocman, G Martin, EPOCH trial group

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

T J StephensCritical Care and Perioperative Medicine Research Group, WHRI, c/o Adult Critical Care Unit, The Royal London Hospital, London, E11BB, UK. t.t.stephens@qmul.ac.uk.
C J PedenKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.
R M PearseCritical Care and Perioperative Medicine Research Group, WHRI, c/o Adult Critical Care Unit, The Royal London Hospital, London, E11BB, UK.
S E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
T E F AbbottCritical Care and Perioperative Medicine Research Group, WHRI, c/o Adult Critical Care Unit, The Royal London Hospital, London, E11BB, UK.
E L JonesWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
D KocmanSAPPHIRE Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
G MartinTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
EPOCH trial group
Royal London Hospital · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Southern California · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/5005/10Department of Health RP_2014-04-022Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Critical PathwaysGroup ProcessesHumansInservice TrainingLaparotomyLength of StayPatient Care TeamPatient ReadmissionPerioperative CareProgram EvaluationQuality ImprovementState MedicineUnited KingdomComplex interventionsEmergency surgeryEvaluationQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30424818
PMCPMC6233578
OpenAlexW2901051576

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.