ArticleBMJ innovations2024
Innovation adoption, use and implementation in emergency departments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMJ innovations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovation Deimplementation in Emergency Departments During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study of Clinicians' Decision-Making.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Technology Adoption in Emergency Departments: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
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
Abstract
Introduction: During a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency department (ED) clinicians may be able to save more lives if they rapidly identify and implement innovations that are safe and effective. However, there is little research examining clinician decision-making around innovation implementation during public health emergencies and when evidence-based information is limited. Objective: The goals of this study were to understand how ED clinicians decided to implement innovations and to describe the facilitators and challenges they faced during implementation. Methods: We conducted 3 pilot interviews and 13 focus group discussions with clinicians from eight hospital-based EDs across the USA. Seventeen physicians, seven advanced practice providers, 18 nurses and seven respiratory therapists participated. We used inductive and deductive techniques to perform content and thematic analysis of focus group transcripts. Results: Participants cited social media, clinician autonomy, limited resources, organisational culture, supportive leadership and outside experiences as facilitators of trying innovations. Challenges in trying new innovations included limited evidence-based information, evolving guidelines, fear, moral distress and clinician pushback. Facilitators of using innovations in practice included leadership advocating for continued use, signs of patient improvement, ease of adoption and adequate resources. Challenges were the lack of familiarity, no established protocol and limited information dissemination about best practices. Conclusion: Our study highlights factors that influenced innovation adoption and implementation in EDs during the COVID-19 pandemic, including how fear and moral distress affected decision-making. Organisations can support the implementation of promising innovations by selecting strong leaders, ensuring clinician psychological safety, providing protocols and resources and highlighting successes.
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.