ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Quality improvement initiative: implementing and redefining video review of real-time neonatal procedures using action research.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Video review (VR) of procedures in the medical environment can be used to drive quality improvement. However, first it has to be implemented in a safe and effective way. Our primary objective was to (re)define a guideline for implementing interprofessional VR in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Our secondary objective was to determine the rate of acceptance by providers attending VR. For 9 months, VR sessions were evaluated with a study group, consisting of different stakeholders. A questionnaire was embedded at the end of each session to obtain feedback from providers on the session and on the safe learning environment. In consensus meetings, success factors and preconditions were identified and divided into different factors that influenced the rate of adoption of VR. The number of providers who recorded procedures and attended VR sessions was determined. A total of 18 VR sessions could be organised, with an equal distribution of medical and nursing staff. After the 9-month period, 101/125 (81%) of all providers working on the NICU attended at least 1 session and 80/125 (64%) of all providers recorded their performance of a procedure at least 1 time. In total, 179/297 (61%) providers completed the questionnaire. Almost all providers (99%) reported to have a positive opinion about the review sessions. Preconditions and success factors related to implementation were identified and addressed, including improving the pathway for obtaining consent, preparation of VR, defining the role of the chair during the session and building a safe learning environment. Different strategies were developed to ensure findings from sessions were used for quality improvement. VR was successfully implemented on our NICU and we redefined our guideline with various preconditions and success factors. The adjusted guideline can be helpful for implementation of VR in emergency care settings.
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.