Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32087724›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2020

Adapting rapid assessment procedures for implementation research using a team-based approach to analysis: a case example of patient quality and safety interventions in the ICU.

Laura M Holdsworth, Nadia Safaeinili, Marcy Winget, Karl A Lorenz, Mary Lough, Steve Asch, Elizabeth Malcolm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Perspectives From Community-Based HIV Service Organization Leaders on Priorities in Serving Sexual and Gender Minority Populations.AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Laura M HoldsworthDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0611-2700
Nadia SafaeiniliDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Marcy WingetDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Karl A LorenzDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Mary LoughDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Steve AschDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, School of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Rd MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Elizabeth MalcolmDivision of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovations to improve quality and safety in healthcare are increasingly complex, targeting multiple disciplines and organizational levels, and often requiring significant behavior change by those delivering care. Learning health systems must tackle the crucial task of understanding the implementation and effectiveness of complex interventions, but may be hampered in their efforts by limitations in study design imposed by business-cycle timelines and implementation into fast-paced clinical environments. Rapid assessment procedures are a pragmatic option for producing timely, contextually rich evaluative information about complex interventions implemented into dynamic clinical settings.

methodsWe describe our adaptation of rapid assessment procedures and introduce a rapid team-based analysis process using an example of an evaluation of an intensive care unit (ICU) redesign initiative aimed at improving patient safety in four academic medical centers across the USA. Steps in our approach included (1) iteratively working with stakeholders to develop evaluation questions; (2) integration of implementation science frameworks into field guides and analytic tools; (3) selecting and training a multidisciplinary site visit team; (4) preparation and trust building for 2-day site visits; (5) engaging sites in a participatory approach to data collection; (6) rapid team analysis and triangulation of data sources and methods using a priori charts derived from implementation frameworks; and (7) validation of findings with sites.

resultsWe used the rapid assessment approach at each of the four ICU sites to evaluate the implementation of the sites' innovations. Though the ICU projects all included three common components, they were individually developed to suit the local context and had mixed implementation outcomes. We generated in-depth case summaries describing the overall implementation process for each site; implementation barriers and facilitators for all four sites are presented. One of the site case summaries is presented as an example of findings generated using the method.

conclusionsA rapid team-based approach to qualitative analysis using charts and team discussion using validation techniques, such as member-checking, can be included as part of rapid assessment procedures. Our work demonstrates the value of including rapid assessment procedures for implementation research when time and resources are limited.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesImplementation ScienceAcademic Medical CentersCommunicationHumansInformation TechnologyInservice TrainingIntensive Care UnitsLearning Health SystemOrganizational CulturePatient SafetyQuality of Health CareTime FactorsUnited StatesWorkflowHybrid designsIntensive carePatient safetyQualitative methodsRapid assessment proceduresTeam-based analysis

Identifiers

PMID32087724
PMCPMC7036173

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.