Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32005238›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Facilitators and barriers for emergency department clinicians using a rapid chest pain assessment protocol: qualitative interview research.

Julia Crilly, Jaimi H Greenslade, Sara Berndt, Tracey Hawkins, Louise Cullen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julia CrillyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Gold Coast Health, 1 Hospital Blvd, Southport, QLD, 4215, Australia. julia.crilly@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1455-8983
Jaimi H GreensladeInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Sara BerndtEmergency and Trauma Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Tracey HawkinsEmergency and Trauma Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield Street, Herston, QLD, 4029, Australia.
Louise CullenInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation and School of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUGriffith University · AU

Funding

Emergency Medicine Foundation EMSS-221R24-2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuideline-based processes for the assessment of chest pain are lengthy and resource intensive. The IMProved Assessment of Chest Pain Trial (IMPACT) protocol was introduced in one Australian hospital Emergency Department (ED) to more efficiently risk stratify patients. The theoretical domains framework is a useful approach to assist in identifying barriers and facilitators to the implementation of new guidelines in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to the use of the IMPACT protocol.

methodsGuided by the theoretical domains framework, semi-structured interviews with nine ED clinical staff (medical and nursing) were undertaken in 2016. Content analysis was conducted independently by two researchers to identify those theoretical domains that facilitated or hindered protocol use.

resultsDomains most often reported as fundamental to the use of the IMPACT protocol included 'social/professional role and identity', 'environmental context and resources' and 'social influences'. These factors seemingly influenced professional confidence, with participants noting 'goals' that included standardisation of practice, enhanced patient safety, and reduced need for unnecessary testing. The domain 'environmental context and resources' also contained the most noted barrier - the need to inform new members of staff regarding protocol use. Opportunities to overcome this barrier included modelling of protocol use by staff at all levels and education - both formal and informal.

conclusionsA range of domains were identified by ED staff as influencing their chest pain management behaviour. Fundamental to its use were champions/leaders that were trusted and accessible, as well as social influences (other staff within ED and other specialty areas) that enabled and supported protocol use. Research investigating the implementation and perceived use of the protocol at other sites, of varied geographical locations, is warranted.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthEmergency Service, HospitalHealth Services AccessibilityAdultAustraliaChest PainClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPersonnel, HospitalQualitative ResearchAcute coronary syndromeChest painEmergency departmentQualitativeTheoretical domains framework

Identifiers

PMID32005238
PMCPMC6995126
OpenAlexW3009949204

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.