Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32936837›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve care for patients whose situations are clinically uncertain in hospital settings: A multi-method study using normalisation process theory.

Halle Johnson, Emel Yorganci, Catherine J Evans, Stephen Barclay, Fliss E M Murtagh, Deokhee Yi, Wei Gao, Elizabeth L Sampson, Joanne Droney, Morag Farquhar and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Halle JohnsonCicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4018-4855
Emel YorganciCicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine J EvansCicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0034-7402
Stephen BarclayPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom.
Fliss E M MurtaghWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
Deokhee YiCicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Wei GaoCicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth L SampsonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joanne DroneyThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Morag FarquharSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Jonathan KoffmanCicely Saunders Institute, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health 15/10/17Department of Health ICA-SCL-2015-01-001Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo examine the use of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to establish if, and in what ways, the AMBER care bundle can be successfully normalised into acute hospital practice, and to identify necessary modifications to optimise its implementation.

methodMulti-method process evaluation embedded within a mixed-method feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in two district general hospitals in England. Data were collected using (i) focus groups with health professionals (HPs), (ii) semi-structured interviews with patients and/or carers, (iii) non-participant observations of multi-disciplinary team meetings and (iv) patient clinical note review. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, with interpretation guided by NPT components (coherence; cognitive participation; collective action; reflexive monitoring). Data triangulated across sources.

resultsTwo focus groups (26 HPs), nine non-participant observations, 12 interviews (two patients, 10 relatives), 29 clinical note reviews were conducted. While coherence was evident, with HPs recognising the value of the AMBER care bundle, cognitive participation and collective action presented challenges. Specifically: (1) HPs were unable and unwilling to operationalise the concept of 'risk of dying' intervention eligibility criteria (2) integration relied on a 'champion' to drive participation and ensure sustainability; and (3) differing skills and confidence led to variable engagement with difficult conversations with patients and families about, for example, nearness to end of life. Opportunities for reflexive monitoring were not routinely embedded within the intervention. Reflections on the use of the AMBER care bundle from HPs and patients and families, including recommended modifications became evident through this NPT-driven analysis.

conclusionTo be successfully normalised, new clinical practices, such as the AMBER care bundle, must be studied within the wider context in which they operate. NPT can be used to the aid identification of practical strategies to assist in normalisation of complex interventions where the focus of care is on clinical uncertainty in acute hospital settings.

Indexed as

Critical CarePatient Care BundlesAttitude of Health PersonnelData Interpretation, StatisticalEnglandFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHospitalsHumansQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID32936837
PMCPMC7494119

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.