Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40803723›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Convergent parallel mixed-methods study to understand the impact of decision-making for congenital cardiac surgery patients at a tertiary paediatric hospital: a study protocol.

Leyi Yin, Sonia Pinkney, Azadeh Assadi, Mark Fan, Yasmin Zahiri, Mjaye Mazwi, Osami Honjo, Patricia Trbovich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Leyi YinTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada bellinda.yin@mail.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-6064-2221
Sonia PinkneyDalla Lana School of Public Health, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Azadeh AssadiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mark FanResearch and Innovation, North York General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yasmin ZahiriDivision of Cardiovascular Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mjaye MazwiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Osami HonjoDivision of Cardiovascular Surgery, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Patricia TrbovichDalla Lana School of Public Health, Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8120-5926

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCongenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital condition, often necessitating complex heart surgeries that require careful planning by multidisciplinary teams. Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) in CHD care aim to integrate diverse expertise to optimise surgical planning. However, the lack of standardised protocols for conducting these meetings introduces undesirable variability in decision-making processes, potentially impacting patient outcomes. This study addresses the critical gap in understanding which aspects of MDMs should be standardised to ensure consistent, high-quality decision-making while also identifying areas where flexibility is essential to accommodate individual patient needs. The objective is to characterise current MDM practices in CHD care, identify factors contributing to variability and provide insights into how a balance between standardisation and flexibility can improve decision-making and patient outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A convergent parallel mixed-methods study design will be used to collect, analyse and interpret quantitative and qualitative data. Data collection will include a blend of naturalistic observations and chart reviews to track patient journeys from surgical planning through to postoperative outcomes. To complement these findings, interviews with healthcare providers will capture subjective perspectives on multidisciplinary decision-making. Additionally, departmental metrics will be collected to contextualise the broader clinical environment. Closed-ended observational and chart review data will be analysed using summary statistics and descriptive analysis (eg, percentages, means) to characterise MDM decision-making. Qualitative data (eg, reflections and learnings) from weekly post-surgical debriefs (called Performance Rounds) and clinician interviews on MDM decision-making will be analysed using a modified Framework Method. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional research ethics approval has been acquired (REB #1000080464). To engage key stakeholders and foster collaborative improvement, study results will be shared in research rounds, where staff attending medical surgical conferences, team huddles, morbidity and mortality reviews, and Performance Rounds will be invited to participate. Targeted meetings with individual clinician groups will further allow for in-depth discussion and valuable feedback on the findings. Finally, the findings from this study are anticipated to make a meaningful contribution to the literature; a manuscript is planned for submission to a peer-reviewed journal.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresClinical Decision-MakingDecision MakingHeart Defects, CongenitalPatient Care TeamHospitals, PediatricHumansQualitative ResearchResearch DesignTertiary Care CentersCardiac surgeryClinical Decision-MakingCongenital heart diseasePaediatric cardiac surgeryPaediatric cardiologyPaediatric intensive & critical care

Identifiers

PMID40803723
PMCPMC12352240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.