Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39192331›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Pre-implementation planning for a sepsis intervention in a large learning health system: a qualitative study.

Tara A Eaton, Marc Kowalkowski, Ryan Burns, Hazel Tapp, Katherine O'Hare, Stephanie P Taylor

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04495946 (Implementation and Effectiveness of Engagement and Collaborative Management to Proactively Advance Sepsis Survivorship), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04495946 nacompletednot on this map

Implementation and Effectiveness of Engagement and Collaborative Management to Proactively Advance Sepsis Survivorship: A Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2020 to 2024Enrolled3,894ConditionsSepsisArmsSepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Tara A EatonCenter for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health, 1300 Scott Ave, Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA. tara.eaton@atriumhealth.org.
Marc KowalkowskiCenter for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health, 1300 Scott Ave, Charlotte, NC, 28203, USA.
Ryan BurnsDepartment of Community Health, Atrium Health, 4135 South Stream Blvd, Charlotte, NC, 28217, USA.
Hazel TappDepartment of Family Medicine, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Ave., Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC, 28207, USA.
Katherine O'HareCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, 195 Church Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Stephanie P TaylorDepartment of Internal Medicine, Taubman Center, University of Michigan, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, 3110SPC 5368, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5368, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis survivors experience high morbidity and mortality. Though recommended best practices have been established to address the transition and early post hospital needs and promote recovery for sepsis survivors, few patients receive recommended post-sepsis care. Our team developed the Sepsis Transition and Recovery (STAR) program, a multicomponent transition intervention that leverages virtually-connected nurses to coordinate the application of evidence-based recommendations for post-sepsis care with additional clinical support from hospitalist and primary care physicians. In this paper, we present findings from a qualitative pre-implementation study, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), of factors to inform successful STAR implementation at a large learning health system prior to effectiveness testing as part of a Type I Hybrid trial.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 16) with 8 administrative leaders and 8 clinicians. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed in ATLAS.ti using a combination deductive/inductive strategy based on CFIR domains and constructs and the Constant Comparison Method.

resultsSix facilitators and five implementation barriers were identified spanning all five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals and Process). Facilitators of STAR included alignment with health system goals, fostering stakeholder engagement, sharing STAR outcomes data, good communication between STAR navigators and patient care teams/PCPs, clinician promotion of STAR with patients, and good rapport and effective communication between STAR navigators and patients, caregivers, and family members. Barriers of STAR included competing demands for staff time and resources, insufficient communication and education of STAR's value and effectiveness, underlying informational and technology gaps among patients, lack of patient access to community resources, and patient distrust of the program and/or health care.

conclusionsCFIR proved to be a robust framework for examining facilitators and barriers for pre-implementation planning of post-sepsis care programs within diverse hospital and community settings in a large LHS. Conducting a structured pre-implementation evaluation helps researchers design with implementation in mind prior to effectiveness studies and should be considered a key component of Type I hybrid trials when feasible.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04495946 . Registered August 3, 2020.

Indexed as

Learning Health SystemQualitative ResearchSepsisFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleSurvivorsCFIR (32)LHS (22)Pre-Implementation (16)Qualitative (10)Sepsis (33)STAR (88)

Identifiers

PMID39192331
PMCPMC11350962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.