Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31780591›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Challenges in making standardisation work in healthcare: lessons from a qualitative interview study of a line-labelling policy in a UK region.

Natasha Marie Kriznik, Guillaume Lamé, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patient Safety and the Question of Dignitary Harms.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Current methods of nurse-surgeon training and education: Systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Natasha Marie KriznikTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4291-0614
Guillaume LaméTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9514-1890
Mary Dixon-WoodsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK director@thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health NF-SI-0617-10026Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT09789
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify and learn from efforts to design and implement a standardised policy for labelling of invasive tubing and lines across a regional health system.

designSingle case study involving qualitative interviews and documentary analysis.

settingA devolved health system in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

participantsNHS staff (n=10) and policy-makers (n=8) who were involved in the design and/or implementation of the standardised policy.

resultsThough standardising labelling of invasive tubing and lines was initially seen as a common-sense technical change, challenges during the process of developing and implementing the policy were multiple and sociotechnical in nature. Major challenges related to defining the problem and the solution, limited sustained engagement with stakeholders and users, prototyping/piloting of the solution, and planning for implementation. Some frontline staff remained unconvinced of the need for or value of the policy, since they either did not believe that there was a problem or did not agree that standardised labelling was the right solution. Mundane practical issues such authorisation and resourcing, supply chains for labels, the need to restructure work practices to accommodate the new standard, and the physical features of the labels in specific clinical settings all had important impacts.

conclusionsNewly standardised tools and practices have to fit within a system of pre-existing norms, practices and procedures. We identified a number of practical, social and cultural challenges when designing and implementing a standardised policy in a regional healthcare system. Taking account of both sociocultural and technical aspects of standardisation, combined with systems thinking, could lead to more effective implementation and increase acceptability and usability of new standards.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareInterviews as TopicIntubationProduct LabelingQualitative ResearchReference StandardsUnited Kingdomimplementationstandardisationsystems thinkingusability

Identifiers

PMID31780591
PMCPMC6887013

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.