ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Formative qualitative evaluation of an improvement programme delivered in an English hospital trust to reduce harm from pressure ulcers.
Article 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.
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
BackgroundPressure ulcers (PUs) are a leading cause of preventable harm globally and can cause patients significant pain, infection and, in rare incidents, death. There is a strong evidence base for how to improve PUs and one UK healthcare trust used this evidence to develop a quality improvement (QI) programme using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's Breakthrough Series collaborative model. 20 teams, from both acute and community settings, participated in the first two phases of the collaborative. The delivery of both phases used virtual delivery using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement's improvement model. This study sought to formatively evaluate the early phases of the collaborative, to support learning and continual improvements to the collaborative programme and other collaboratives delivered by the organisation based on the formative evaluation.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled participants to explore their perspectives about the implementation of the programme, interventions tested as part of the 'change package' provided and the pandemic's impact.
resultsA total of seven participants were interviewed, including acute ward managers, a charge nurse (deputy ward manager), a wound healing community nurse and a team leader community nurse. Interview durations varied from 9 min to 28 min. The interviews were kept short and stopped when data saturation was achieved as it was an extremely pressurised time for the organisation where the highest escalation alert was triggered on numerous occasions.
conclusionA sustained reduction in PUs was achieved during the evaluation period and participants felt that the approach helped to achieve this, regardless of the adaptations made to the delivery method due to the pandemic. To support improvements, it is vital to ensure systems such as data collection are accurate and timely. The necessity for building strong foundations for QI capability must not be underestimated, as greater QI knowledge leads to better engagement and outcomes.
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.