Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36854912›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses2023

Measuring Performance on the ABCDEF Bundle During Interprofessional Rounds via a Nurse-Based Assessment Tool.

Andrew J King, Kelly M Potter, Jennifer B Seaman, Elizabeth A Chiyka, Bethany A Hileman, Gregory F Cooper, Danielle L Mowery, Derek C Angus, Jeremy M Kahn

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Delirium and Coronavirus Disease 2019: Looking Back, Moving Forward.Critical care nursing clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  2. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew J KingAndrew J. King is a research assistant professor in the Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kelly M PotterKelly M. Potter is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer B SeamanJennifer B. Seaman is an assistant professor in the Department of Acute and Tertiary Care, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing.
Elizabeth A ChiykaElizabeth A. Chiyka is a graduate student in the Department of Human Genetics, University of Pittsburgh.
Bethany A HilemanBethany A. Hileman is an undergraduate student in the Department of Molecular Biology, University of Pittsburgh.
Gregory F CooperGregory F. Cooper is a professor in the Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh.
Danielle L MoweryDanielle L. Mowery is an assistant professor in the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Derek C AngusDerek C. Angus is a professor in the Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jeremy M KahnJeremy M. Kahn is professor in the Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
University of Pittsburgh · USBethel University · USIndiana State University · USInstitute of Human Genetics · PLSt. Gregory's University · USUniversity of the Sciences · US

Funding

Organizational strategies for improving evidence-uptake in intensive careR35HL144804 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KAHN, JEREMY M · 2019 to 2025
$6.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R35 HL144804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNurse-led rounding checklists are a common strategy for facilitating evidence-based practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). To streamline checklist workflow, some ICUs have the nurse or another individual listen to the conversation and customize the checklist for each patient. Such customizations assume that individuals can reliably assess whether checklist items have been addressed.

objectiveTo evaluate whether 1 critical care nurse can reliably assess checklist items on rounds.

methodsTwo nurses performed in-person observation of multidisciplinary ICU rounds. Using a standardized paper-based assessment tool, each nurse indicated whether 17 items related to the ABCDEF bundle were discussed during rounds. For each item, generalizability coefficients were used as a measure of reliability, with a single-rater value of 0.70 or greater considered sufficient to support its assessment by 1 nurse.

resultsThe nurse observers assessed 118 patient discussions across 15 observation days. For 11 of 17 items (65%), the generalizability coefficient for a single rater met or exceeded the 0.70 threshold. The generalizability coefficients (95% CIs) of a single rater for key items were as follows: pain, 0.86 (0.74-0.97); delirium score, 0.74 (0.64-0.83); agitation score, 0.72 (0.33-1.00); spontaneous awakening trial, 0.67 (0.49-0.83); spontaneous breathing trial, 0.80 (0.70-0.89); mobility, 0.79 (0.69-0.87); and family (future/past) engagement, 0.82 (0.73-0.90).

conclusionUsing a paper-based assessment tool, a single trained critical care nurse can reliably assess the discussion of elements of the ABCDEF bundle during multidisciplinary rounds.

Indexed as

ChecklistCommunicationCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36854912
PMCPMC12244849
OpenAlexW4322620986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.