ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Implementation of a Quality Improvement Tool "Recover25" to Guide the Care of Patients Experiencing Prolonged Critical Illness: A Mixed-Method Feasibility Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFew quality improvement (QI) tools are specifically designed to manage the care of patients experiencing prolonged critical illness. This risks omissions in care. To determine the implementation feasibility and clinician acceptability of our QI tool "Recover25," we focused on actionable processes of care for patients with an ICU stay of over 7 days and their families.
designParallel convergent mixed-methods feasibility study conducted between February 2024 and May 2024.
settingA mixed ICU in London, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Patients with an ICU stay of more than 7 days, and the staff who care for them.
interventionsWe invited representatives of all ICU professions to a weekly QI round. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe recorded the time completed Recover25, the amount and type of actions generated following Recover25 use (i.e., what new care activities did it prompt), and the number and profession of staff attending each round. We administered the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) questionnaire and conducted semi-structured clinician interviews. We calculated means (sds) or interquartile ranges (IQRs) (percentiles) of time to complete and a number of actions generated. We analyzed and integrated qualitative data using framework analysis informed by the TFA. "Recover 25" was used 34 times (65%) of 52 opportunities with 26 patients. Median (IQR) Recover25 completion time was 9.75 minutes (8.2-14.9 min) with a completion rate of 96% (89-100%). Recover25 usage prompted a median of 1 (IQR) (1-2) new action. There was a mean of 4 (sd 2) interprofessional team members attending each QI round. Nineteen clinicians completed 33 TFA questionnaires and 11 interviews. Recover25 was perceived as acceptable, with 94% reporting it aligned with their principles of good care, 85% perceiving it as a coherent intervention, and 67% perceiving it was effective. Interview data showed participants valued the emphasis on person-centered care and highlighted ways to improve implementation.
conclusionRecover25 was perceived as feasible to implement and acceptable by staff. Further work is needed to understand the effects on patient experience 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.