Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34974832›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting.

Brianna K Rosgen, Kara M Plotnikoff, Karla D Krewulak, Anmol Shahid, Laura Hernandez, Bonnie G Sept, Jeanna Morrissey, Kristin Robertson, Nancy Fraser, Daniel J Niven and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Brianna K RosgenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Kara M PlotnikoffDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Karla D KrewulakDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Anmol ShahidDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Laura HernandezDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Bonnie G SeptDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Jeanna MorrisseyCritical Care Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, 10030 - 107 Street NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3E4, Canada.
Kristin RobertsonCritical Care Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, 10030 - 107 Street NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3E4, Canada.
Nancy FraserCritical Care Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services, 10030 - 107 Street NW, Edmonton, AB, T5J 3E4, Canada.
Daniel J NivenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Sharon E StrausDepartment of Medicine, Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Cir, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Jeanna Parsons LeighDepartment of Medicine, School of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, 1276 South Park Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 2Y9, Canada.
Henry T StelfoxDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Kirsten M FiestDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary, 3260 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada. kmfiest@ucalgary.ca.
University of Calgary · CAAlberta Health · CAAlberta Health Services · CADalhousie University · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community).

methodsWe conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle.

resultsTwenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants' AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle.

conclusionsFindings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.

Indexed as

Patient Care BundlesAdultConsensusCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient TransferAdultCritical careICUPatient dischargeTransitions in care

Identifiers

PMID34974832
PMCPMC8722038
OpenAlexW4205234448

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.