ArticleAustralasian journal on ageing2025
Implementing a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) service: A guide for clinical leaders.
Article in Australasian journal on ageing, 2025. 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.
- Implementing a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) service: A guide for clinical leaders.Australasian journal on ageing · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to translate previous implementation science research describing the implementation of perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) services into a format that is comprehensible and relevant to clinical leaders contemplating implementing a POPS service.
methodsWe conducted a multistage expert end-user review process to design a POPS implementation guide. Our expert research team created a draft POPS service implementation guide using previous implementation science research that described the core elements and implementation of a POPS service. Next, we invited multidisciplinary (allied health, anaesthetics, geriatric medicine, nursing and surgery) clinical leaders in perioperative medicine (n = 12) from five contextually different health services to review the guide. These clinical leaders then participated in two rounds of review and refinement of the implementation guide.
resultsThe first draft of the POPS service implementation guide was reviewed by clinical leaders (n = 4) with participants querying implementation science-based language and concepts, the format of the guide and its practical use. We revised the guide accordingly, and the next draft was reviewed by the second group of clinical leaders (n = 8). Feedback from the second group review was supportive of the guide's comprehensibility and relevance, and only minor changes were made to the final version of the POPS service implementation guide.
conclusionsWe used an implementation science-based approach to create a POPS service implementation guide that is comprehensible and relevant to clinical leaders in perioperative care. The next steps are to use the guide and assess its utility to support implementation of a POPS service.
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.