ArticleBMJ open quality2020
Prospective multicentre multifaceted before-after implementation study of ICU delirium guidelines: a process evaluation.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Barriers and Facilitators to Delirium Management Among ICU Nurses in Two Tertiary Hospitals in Chongqing, China: A Qualitative Study Using the COM-B Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Improving critical care nurses' knowledge of central venous catheter management through education.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2025Article
- A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols.Age and ageing · 2024Article
- Prognostic significance of delirium subtypes in critically ill medical and surgical patients: a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study.Journal of intensive care · 2022Article
- Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to explore: the exposure of healthcare workers to a delirium guidelines implementation programme; effects on guideline adherence at intensive care unit (ICU) level; impact on knowledge and barriers, and experiences with the implementation.
designA mixed-methods process evaluation of a prospective multicentre implementation study.
settingSix ICUs.
participants4449 adult ICU patients and 500 ICU professionals approximately.
interventionA tailored implementation programme.
main outcome measureAdherence to delirium guidelines recommendations at ICU level before, during and after implementation; knowledge and perceived barriers; and experiences with the implementation.
resultsFive of six ICUs were exposed to all implementation strategies as planned. More than 85% followed the required e-learnings; 92% of the nurses attended the clinical classroom lessons; five ICUs used all available implementation strategies and perceived to have implemented all guideline recommendations (>90%). Adherence to predefined performance indicators (PIs) at ICU level was only above the preset target (>85%) for delirium screening. For all other PIs, the inter-ICU variability was between 34% and 72%. The implementation of delirium guidelines was feasible and successful in resolving the majority of barriers found before the implementation. The improvement was well sustained 6 months after full guideline implementation. Knowledge about delirium was improved (from 61% to 65%). The implementation programme was experienced as very successful.
conclusionsMultifaceted implementation can improve and sustain adherence to delirium guidelines, is feasible and can largely be performed as planned. However, variability in delirium guideline adherence at individual ICUs remains a challenge, indicating the need for more tailoring at centre level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.