Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33509190›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2021

Implementation of clinical practice changes in the PICU: a qualitative study using and refining the iPARIHS framework.

Katherine M Steffen, Laura M Holdsworth, Mackenzie A Ford, Grace M Lee, Steven M Asch, Enola K Proctor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2021. 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. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

6 authors.

Katherine M SteffenDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, 770 Welch Road, Suite 435, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA. steffen3@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8539-3696
Laura M HoldsworthStanford Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford, CA, USA.
Mackenzie A FordDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Grace M LeeDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Steven M AschVA Center for Innovation to Implementation, Stanford Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Enola K ProctorGeorge Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

Washington University K12 Program in T4 Implementation ResearchK12HL137942 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DAVILA-ROMAN, VICTOR G. · 2017 to 2021
$3.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS K12HL137942
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLike in many settings, implementation of evidence-based practices often fall short in pediatric intensive care units (PICU). Very few prior studies have applied implementation science frameworks to understand how best to improve practices in this unique environment. We used the relatively new integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS) framework to assess practice improvement in the PICU and to explore the utility of the framework itself for that purpose.

methodsWe used the iPARIHS framework to guide development of a semi-structured interview tool to examine barriers, facilitators, and the process of change in the PICU. A framework approach to qualitative analysis, developed around iPARIHS constructs and subconstructs, helped identify patterns and themes in provider interviews. We assessed the utility of iPARIHS to inform PICU practice change.

resultsFifty multi-professional providers working in 8 U.S. PICUs completed interviews. iPARIHS constructs shaped the development of a process model for change that consisted of phases that include planning, a decision to adopt change, implementation and facilitation, and sustainability; the PICU environment shaped each phase. Large, complex multi-professional teams, and high-stakes work at near-capacity impaired receptivity to change. While the unit leaders made decisions to pursue change, providers' willingness to accept change was based on the evidence for the change, and provider's experiences, beliefs, and capacity to integrate change into a demanding workflow. Limited analytic structures and resources frustrated attempts to monitor changes' impacts. Variable provider engagement, time allocated to work on changes, and limited collaboration impacted facilitation. iPARIHS constructs were useful in exploring implementation; however, we identified inter-relation of subconstructs, unique concepts not captured by the framework, and a need for subconstructs to further describe facilitation.

conclusionsThe PICU environment significantly shaped the implementation. The described process model for implementation may be useful to guide efforts to integrate changes and select implementation strategies. iPARIHS was adequate to identify barriers and facilitators of change; however, further elaboration of subconstructs for facilitation would be helpful to operationalize the framework.

trial registrationNot applicable, as no health care intervention was performed.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth ServicesChildHumansImplementation ScienceIntensive Care Units, PediatricQualitative ResearchClinical practice changeImplementationIntensive care unitPediatric

Identifiers

PMID33509190
PMCPMC7841901

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.