ReviewBMJ open quality2024
Sepsis screening protocol implementation: a clinician-validated rapid realist review.
Review in BMJ open quality, 2024. 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe failed or partial implementation of clinical practices negatively impacts patient safety and increases systemic inefficiencies. Implementation of sepsis screening guidelines has been undertaken in many settings with mixed results. Without a theoretical understanding of what leads to successful implementation, improving implementation will continue to be ad hoc or intuitive. This study proposes a programme theory for how and why the successful implementation of sepsis screening guidelines can occur.
methodsA rapid realist review was conducted to develop a focused programme theory for the implementation of sepsis screening guidelines. An independent two-reviewer approach was used to iteratively extract and synthesise context and mechanism data. Theoretical context-mechanism-outcome propositions were refined and validated by clinicians using a focus group and individual realist interviews. Implementation resources and clinical reasoning were differentiated in articulating mechanisms.
resultsEighteen articles were included in the rapid review. The theoretical domains framework was identified as the salient substantive theory informing the programme theory. The theory consisted of five main middle-range propositions. Three promoting mechanisms included positive belief about the benefits of the protocol, belief in the legitimacy of using the protocol and trust within the clinical team. Two inhibiting mechanisms included pessimism about the protocol being beneficial and pessimism about the team. Successful implementation was defined as achieving fidelity and sustained use of the intervention. Two intermediate outcomes, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and adoption, were necessary to achieve before successful implementation.
conclusionThis rapid realist review synthesised key information from the literature and clinician feedback to develop a theory-based approach to clinical implementation of sepsis screening. The programme theory presents knowledge users with an outline of how and why clinical interventions lead to successful implementation and could be applied in other clinical areas to improve quality and safety.
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.