Trial reportImplementation science : IS2026
Implementing an intervention to facilitate early detection of deterioration in aged care residents: process evaluation of the EDDIE + trial.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEDDIE + was a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation in 11 residential aged care (RAC) homes in Queensland, Australia. The intervention aimed to upskill RAC staff to identify and manage deterioration to reduce unnecessary hospital transfer through education, decision support tools, diagnostic equipment and local facilitation. Main trial results indicated 46% of hospital admissions were due to falls and no significant improvements to outcome measures including hospital bed days were achieved. These findings were examined through a process evaluation.
methodsA mixed methods approach guided by the i-PARIHS framework was used to assess fidelity, acceptability, mechanisms of impact and feasibility of implementation, including barriers and enablers. Semi-structured interviews, self-efficacy surveys, and project tracking documents were used. Qualitative data were coded to the i-PARIHS framework and quantitative data were analysed using linear mixed modelling.
resultsFidelity varied considerably due to workforce shortages including vacancy in the local clinical facilitator role, high workload, COVID-19, and other contextual factors. Differences in job and team-related staff self-efficacy before and after the introduction of EDDIE + were not statistically significant. However, inductive thematic analysis of the questionnaires indicated that staff felt their knowledge, skills, confidence and communication had increased.
conclusionsThe process evaluation indicates high acceptability of the EDDIE + intervention. However, fidelity and intended mechanisms of impact were mixed despite substantial pre-planning prior to implementation. For future studies, specific barriers in the RAC setting such as staffing and turnover may be unable to be adequately addressed without systemic change.
trial registrationThe trial is prospectively registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000507987, registered 23/04/2020).
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.