ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Improving Knowledge of Active Safety and QI Projects Amongst Practitioners in a Pediatric ICU.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- An innovative sequential mixed-methods approach to evaluating clinician acceptability during implementation of a standardized labor induction protocol.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The success of quality improvement (QI) projects depends on many factors, with communication and knowledge of project-specific practice change being fundamental. This project aimed to improve the knowledge of active safety and QI projects. Methods: Two interventions were trialed to improve knowledge: paired email and meeting announcements followed by a daily huddle to review ongoing projects. Knowledge, measured as the ability to recall a project and its practice change, was the primary outcome. The frequency and duration of the Huddle were process and balancing measures, respectively. Results: Seven days after a meeting/email announcement, 3 of 13 (23%) faculty and fellows recalled the announced practice change. Investigators then tested the effects of the Huddle by assessing practitioners' knowledge of safety and QI project-related practice changes on the first and last day of a service week. The average percentage of items recalled increased from the beginning to end of a service week by 33% [46% to 79%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 12-53] for faculty and 27% (51% to 77%, 95% CI 13-40) for fellows. The Huddle occurred in four of seven (interquartile range 2-5) days/wk with a mean duration of 4.5 (SD 2) minutes. Follow-up assessment 2 years after Huddle implementation demonstrate sustained increase in item recall [faculty +36% (95% CI +13% to 40%); fellows +35% (95% CI +23% to 47%)]. Conclusions: A daily huddle to discuss safety and QI project-related practice change is an effective and time-efficient communication method to increase knowledge of active projects.
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.