Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35394445›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Creation of an Evidence-Based Implementation Framework for Digital Health Technology in the Intensive Care Unit: Qualitative Study.

Lina Katharina Mosch, Akira-Sebastian Poncette, Claudia Spies, Steffen Weber-Carstens, Monique Schieler, Henning Krampe, Felix Balzer

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03514173 (Analysis of Sociotechnical Acceptance and Workflow Integration of a Remote Patient Monitoring Device on an Intensive Care Unit), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

NCT03514173 completednot on this map

Analysis of Sociotechnical Acceptance and Workflow Integration of a Remote Patient Monitoring Device on an Intensive Care Unit

TypeobservationalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2018 to 2023Enrolled208ConditionsRemote Patient Monitoring on Intensive Care UnitArmsRemote Patient Monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Building the future of ICU care: Is our digital foundation strong enough? A multicentre survey of Australian and New Zealand intensive care units.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Lina Katharina Mosch *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3154-2745
Akira-Sebastian Poncette *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4627-7016
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-0495
Steffen Weber-CarstensDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7405-0172
Monique SchielerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7183-2360
Henning KrampeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3553-4064
Felix BalzerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-2056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital health technologies such as continuous remote monitoring and artificial intelligence-driven clinical decision support systems could improve clinical outcomes in intensive care medicine. However, comprehensive evidence and guidelines for the successful implementation of digital health technologies into specific clinical settings such as the intensive care unit (ICU) are scarce. We evaluated the implementation of a remote patient monitoring platform and derived a framework proposal for the implementation of digital health technology in an ICU.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a remote patient monitoring technology and to develop a proposal for an implementation framework for digital health technology in the ICU.

methodsThis study was conducted from May 2018 to March 2020 during the implementation of a tablet computer-based remote patient monitoring system. The system was installed in the ICU of a large German university hospital as a supplementary monitoring device. Following a hybrid qualitative approach with inductive and deductive elements, we used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to analyze the transcripts of 7 semistructured interviews with clinical ICU stakeholders and descriptive questionnaire data. The results of the qualitative analysis, together with the findings from informal meetings, field observations, and previous explorations, provided the basis for the derivation of the proposed framework.

resultsThis study revealed an insufficient implementation process due to lack of staff engagement and few perceived benefits from the novel solution. Further implementation barriers were the high staff presence and monitoring coverage in the ICU. The implementation framework includes strategies to be applied before and during implementation, targeting the implementation setting by involving all ICU stakeholders, assessing the intervention's adaptability, facilitating the implementation process, and maintaining a vital feedback culture. Setting up a unit responsible for implementation, considering the guidance of an implementation advisor, and building on existing institutional capacities could improve the institutional context of implementation projects in the ICU.

conclusionsImplementation of digital health in the ICU should involve a thorough preimplementation assessment of the ICU's need for innovation and its readiness to change, as well as an ongoing evaluation of the implementation conditions. Involvement of all stakeholders, transparent communication, and continuous feedback in an equal atmosphere are essential, but leadership roles must be clearly defined and competently filled. Our proposed framework may guide health care providers with concrete, evidence-based, and step-by-step recommendations for implementation practice, facilitating the introduction of digital health in intensive care.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03514173; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514173.

Indexed as

digital healthimplementationimplementation scienceintensive care medicineintensive care unitinterviewpatient monitoringqualitative researchtechnological innovationusabilityuser-centered

Identifiers

PMID35394445
PMCPMC9034425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.