Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35689227›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Selecting intervention content to target barriers and enablers of recognition and response to deteriorating patients: an online nominal group study.

Duncan Smith, Martin Cartwright, Judith Dyson, Jillian Hartin, Leanne M Aitken

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Modified Delphi study about implementation of early warning scores].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Duncan SmithSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK. Duncan.smith.1@city.ac.uk.
Martin CartwrightSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
Judith DysonReader in Implementation Science, Birmingham City University, Westbourne Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 3TN, UK.
Jillian HartinPatient Emergency Response & Resuscitation Team (PERRT), University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.
Leanne M AitkenSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.
City, University of London · GBBirmingham City University · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Research Trainees Coordinating Centre ICA-CDRF-2017-03-020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who deteriorate in hospital wards without appropriate recognition and/or response are at risk of increased morbidity and mortality. Track-and-trigger tools have been implemented internationally prompting healthcare practitioners (typically nursing staff) to recognise physiological changes (e.g. changes in blood pressure, heart rate) consistent with patient deterioration, and then to contact a practitioner with expertise in management of acute/critical illness. Despite some evidence these tools improve patient outcomes, their translation into clinical practice is inconsistent internationally. To drive greater guideline adherence in the use of the National Early Warning Score tool (a track-and-trigger tool used widely in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe), a theoretically informed implementation intervention was developed (targeting nursing staff) using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) version 2 and a taxonomy of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs).

methodsA three-stage process was followed: 1. TDF domains representing important barriers and enablers to target behaviours derived from earlier published empirical work were mapped to appropriate BCTs; 2. BCTs were shortlisted using consensus approaches within the research team; 3. shortlisted BCTs were presented to relevant stakeholders in two online group discussions where nominal group techniques were applied. Nominal group participants were healthcare leaders, senior clinicians, and ward-based nursing staff. Stakeholders individually generated concrete strategies for operationalising shortlisted BCTs ('applications') and privately ranked them according to acceptability and feasibility. Ranking data were used to drive decision-making about intervention content.

resultsFifty BCTs (mapped in stage 1) were shortlisted to 14 (stage 2) and presented to stakeholders in nominal groups (stage 3) alongside example applications. Informed by ranking data from nominal groups, the intervention was populated with 12 BCTs that will be delivered face-to-face, to individuals and groups of nursing staff, through 18 applications.

conclusionsA description of a theory-based behaviour change intervention is reported, populated with BCTs and applications generated and/or prioritised by stakeholders using replicable consensus methods. The feasibility of the proposed intervention should be tested in a clinical setting and the content of the intervention elaborated further to permit replication and evaluation.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyGuideline AdherenceEuropeHumansUnited KingdomBehavioural researchClinical deteriorationConsensusCritical careGroup processesNursingVital signs

Identifiers

PMID35689227
PMCPMC9186287
OpenAlexW4281625212

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.