ReviewBMJ open quality2021
Efficacy of an implementation package on documentation of central venous catheter insertions: an observational study.
Review in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancies Between Patient-Reported Discomfort and Clinical Documentation in Postoperative Care of Central Venous Catheters After Surgery: A Prospective Descriptive Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The Rate of Procedures Required to Maintain Hemodialysis Vascular Access: A Data Linkage Analysis.Kidney360 · 2025Article
- Factors associated with complications related to the use of peripherally inserted central venous catheter in hospitalized children: a case-control study, Sorocaba, Brazil, 2018-2022.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProper documentation of central venous catheter (CVC) insertions in electronic healthcare records is the basis for good follow-up and quality assurance. We have noted serious deficiencies in the documentation of CVC insertions and introduced an implementation package with the purpose of increasing the completeness of this documentation. The aim of the present study was to estimate the effect of the implementation package by assessing the proportion of missing data before and after the introduction of the implementation package.
methodsIn this single centre observational study, data from CVC insertion templates in a common electronic health record were extracted and analysed after introducing the implementation package. The package included adoption of new local CVC-directions, a new updated CVC-insertion template in the regional common electronic health record and a review of all CVC-insertion templates with a reminder to the inserting physician to supplement missing data. The proportion of terms with missing data was reviewed and also compared with the proportion of missing data in a study prior to the introduction of the package.
resultsIn total, 7126 CVC-insertion templates were included. Of these 5539 (78%) were without missing data for any of the 13 predefined variables. Completed insertion templates for three common terms increased from 38% prior to the introduction of the implementation package to 93%, which represents an absolute reduction for missing data of 55% (95% CI 53% to 56%, p<0.0001).
conclusionThe implementation package was highly effective in increasing the proportion of fully documented CVC insertions.
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.