Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36941593›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Santana Silver, Kayla Christine Jones, Sarah Redmond, Emily George, Sarah Zornes, Amelia Barwise, Aaron Leppin, Yue Dong, Lori A Harmon, Vishakha K Kumar and 3 more

Open access · goldFull text readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Making sense of the outcome of a rehabilitation implementation trial in the intensive care unit: Mixed methods.The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Santana SilverEvans Center for Implementation & Improvement Sciences (CIIS), Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. ssilver3@bu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7066-6703
Kayla Christine JonesEvans Center for Implementation & Improvement Sciences (CIIS), Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Sarah RedmondRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Emily GeorgeBoston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Sarah ZornesRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Amelia BarwiseDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Aaron LeppinRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Yue DongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Lori A HarmonDepartment of Research and Quality, Society of Critical Care Medicine, 500 Midway Drive, Mount Prospect, IL, 60056, USA.
Vishakha K KumarDepartment of Research and Quality, Society of Critical Care Medicine, 500 Midway Drive, Mount Prospect, IL, 60056, USA.
Christina KordikDepartment of Research and Quality, Society of Critical Care Medicine, 500 Midway Drive, Mount Prospect, IL, 60056, USA.
Allan J WalkeyEvans Center for Implementation & Improvement Sciences (CIIS), Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Mari-Lynn DrainoniEvans Center for Implementation & Improvement Sciences (CIIS), Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Boston University · USMayo Clinic · USSociety of Critical Care Medicine · US

Funding

Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of Critical Care Medicine
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic.

methodsWe used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes.

resultsAmong the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles.

conclusionsThrough applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Indexed as

COVID-19Primary Health CareCritical CareCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsQualitative ResearchUnited StatesBarriersCFIRCOVID-19Critical careFacilitatorsImplementation science

Identifiers

PMID36941593
PMCPMC10026230
OpenAlexW4328049388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read5
measurements read2
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.