ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2025
Emergency clinicians' use of adult and paediatric sepsis pathways: An implementation redesign using the behaviour change wheel.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early recognition and bundle-based management of pediatric sepsis in the emergency department: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Construction and validation of a sepsis prediction model using inflammatory and hemodynamic markers in the emergency department.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Emergency clinicians' use of adult and paediatric sepsis pathways: An implementation redesign using the behaviour change wheel.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo identify facilitators and barriers and tailor implementation strategies to optimize emergency clinician's use of adult and paediatric sepsis pathways.
designA qualitative descriptive study using focus group methodology.
methodsTwenty-two emergency nurses and ten emergency medical officers from four Australian EDs participated in eight virtual focus groups. Participants were asked about their experiences using the New South Wales Clinical Excellence Commission adult and paediatric sepsis pathways using a semi-structured interview template. Facilitators and barriers to use of the sepsis pathways were categorized using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Tailored interventions were selected to address facilitators and barriers, and a re-implementation plan was devised guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel.
resultsThirty-two facilitators and 58 barriers were identified corresponding to 11 Theoretical Domains Framework domains. Tailored strategies were selected to optimize emergency clinicians' use of the sepsis pathways including refinement of existing education and training programmes, modifications to the electronic medical record system, introduction of an audit and feedback system, staffing strategies and additional resources.
conclusionThe implementation of sepsis pathways in the Emergency Department setting is complex, impacted by a multitude of factors requiring tailored strategies to address facilitators and barriers and optimize uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: This study presents a theory-informed systematic approach to successfully implement and embed adult and paediatric sepsis pathways into clinical practice in the Emergency Department. IMPACT: Optimizing uptake of sepsis pathways has the potential to improve sepsis recognition and management, subsequently improving the outcome of patients with sepsis. REPORTING
methodThe Consolidated Criteria for REporting Qualitative research guided the preparation of this report. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Nil.
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.