ArticleCJEM2026
Identifying barriers and facilitators to use of the Canadian emergency department best practices checklist for skin and soft tissue infections.
Article in CJEM, 2026. 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
backgroundProviding guideline-based care for patients with skin and soft tissue infections improves patient outcomes. The Canadian Emergency Department Best Practices Checklist for skin and soft tissue infections was recently developed for use by emergency physicians.
objectivesTo identify barriers and facilitators to using the skin and soft tissue infection checklist by emergency physicians.
methodsAn interview guide was developed based on the theoretical domains framework and piloted on two interview subjects. Following minimal refinements to the interview guide to decrease repetitiveness and improve clarity, from August to December 2024 we conducted semi-structured interviews with Canadian emergency physicians. The transcripts were anonymized and independently coded using direct content analysis, and specific beliefs were generated by grouping similar responses. A saliency analysis was conducted to identify relevant domains.
resultsFifteen interviews were conducted involving emergency physicians across eight Canadian provinces. Six theoretical domains framework domains were identified as relevant: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, intentions, memory/attention/decision processes, environmental context/resources, and behavioral regulation. Competing demands (busy environment, many decision tools) were identified as potential barriers, whereas using technology (e.g., electronic health record integration) and the presence of learners were identified as facilitators to using the skin and soft tissue infection checklist.
conclusionThis qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework identified barriers and facilitators to using the skin and soft tissue infection checklist by emergency physicians. Our findings form a basis for developing strategies to improve evidence-based care of skin and soft tissue infections in the emergency department.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41840206What 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.