Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36828659›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Implementation of the national Getting it Right First Time orthopaedic programme in England: a qualitative case study analysis.

Fiona Aspinal, Jean Ledger, Sarah Jasim, Raj Mehta, Rosalind Raine, Naomi J Fulop, Helen Barratt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Fiona AspinalDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK f.aspinal@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-7570
Jean LedgerDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2523-7971
Sarah JasimCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3940-6350
Raj MehtaNIHR ARC North Thames Research Advisory Panel, Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4003-530X
Rosalind RaineDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0904-749X
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5306-6140
Helen BarrattDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1387-137X

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe the implementation and impact of the Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) national orthopaedic improvement programme at the level of individual National Health Service (NHS) Trusts.

designQualitative case studies conducted at six NHS Trusts, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of GIRFT.

settingNHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England.

participants59 NHS staff.

interventionImprovement bundle, including bespoke routine performance data and improvement recommendations for each organisation, delivered via 'deep-dive' visits to NHS Trusts by a senior orthopaedic clinician.

resultsAlthough all case study sites had made improvements to care, very few of these were reportedly a direct consequence of GIRFT. A range of factors, operating at three different levels, influenced their ability to implement GIRFT recommendations: at the level of the orthopaedic team (micro-eg, how individuals perceived the intervention); the wider Trust (meso-eg, competition for theatre/bed space) and the health economy more broadly (macro-eg, requirements to form local networks). Some sites used GIRFT evidence to support arguments for change which helped cement and formalise existing plans. However, where GIRFT measures were not a Trust priority because of more immediate demands-for example, financial and bed pressures-it was less likely to influence change.

conclusionDynamic relationships between the different contextual factors, within and between the three levels, can impact the effectiveness of a large-scale improvement intervention and may account for variations in implementation outcomes in different settings. When designing an intervention, those leading future improvement programmes should consider how it sits in relation to these three contextual levels and the interactions that may occur between them.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsEnglandHumansQualitative ResearchState MedicineAdult orthopaedicsOrthopaedic & trauma surgeryQUALITATIVE RESEARCHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID36828659
PMCPMC9972449

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.