ArticleBMJ open2023
Implementation of the national Getting it Right First Time orthopaedic programme in England: a qualitative case study analysis.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding implementation of the 'high volume, low complexity' surgical hubs programme in England: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Implementation of hip replacement surgery recommendations: a qualitative study of orthopaedic surgeons' perspectives.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- An AI-based system for fully automated knee alignment assessment in standard AP knee radiographs.The Knee · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.