Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34530918›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2021

Implementation of a central-line bundle: a qualitative study of three clinical units.

Joanne Goldman, Leahora Rotteau, Kaveh G Shojania, G Ross Baker, Paula Rowland, Marlys K Christianson, Timothy J Vogus, Connie Cameron, Maitreya Coffey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical considerations in quality improvement.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors.

Joanne GoldmanCentre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 630-525 University Ave., Toronto, M5G2L3, Canada. joanne.goldman@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1589-4070
Leahora RotteauCentre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 630-525 University Ave., Toronto, M5G2L3, Canada.
Kaveh G ShojaniaCentre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 630-525 University Ave., Toronto, M5G2L3, Canada.
G Ross BakerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College St., Suite 425, Toronto, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Paula RowlandWilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth St., 1ES-565, Toronto, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Marlys K ChristiansonRotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 125 St. George St., Toronto, M5S 2E8, Canada.
Timothy J VogusOwen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, 401 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA.
Connie CameronThe Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave., Toronto, M5G 1X8, Canada.
Maitreya CoffeyThe Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave., Toronto, M5G 1X8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence for the central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) bundle effectiveness remains mixed, possibly reflecting implementation challenges and persistent ambiguities in how CLABSIs are counted and bundle adherence measured. In the context of a tertiary pediatric hospital that had reduced CLABSI by 30% as part of an international safety program, we aimed to examine unit-based socio-cultural factors influencing bundle practices and measurement, and how they come to be recognized and attended to by safety leaders over time in an organization-wide bundle implementation effort.

methodsWe used an interpretivist qualitative research approach, based on 74 interviews, approximately 50 h of observations, and documents. Data collection focused on hospital executives and safety leadership, and three clinical units: a medical specialty unit, an intensive care unit, and a surgical unit. We used thematic analysis and constant comparison methods for data analysis.

resultsParticipants had variable beliefs about the central-line bundle as a quality improvement priority based on their professional roles and experiences and unit setting, which influenced their responses. Nursing leaders were particularly concerned about CLABSI being one of an overwhelming number of QI targets for which they were responsible. Bundle implementation strategies were initially reliant on unit-based nurse education. Over time there was recognition of the need for centralized education and reinforcement tactics. However, these interventions achieved limited impact given the influence of competing unit workflow demands and professional roles, interactions, and routines, which were variably targeted in the safety program. The auditing process, initially a responsibility of units, was performed in different ways based on individuals' approaches to the process. Given concerns about auditing reliability, a centralized approach was implemented, which continued to have its own variability.

conclusionsOur findings report on a contextualized, dynamic implementation approach that required movement between centralized and unit-based approaches and from a focus on standardization to some recognition of a role for customization. However, some factors related to bundle compliance and measurement remain unaddressed, including harder to change socio-cultural factors likely important to sustainability of the CLABSI reductions and fostering further improvements across a broader safety agenda.

Indexed as

Central-line-associated bloodstream infectionsCentral-line bundleImplementationPatient safetyQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34530918
PMCPMC8447632

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.