ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Rollout of a care bundle for intracerebral haemorrhage across the North of England: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA care bundle was developed and implemented at a hospital in North West England to improve the management of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and was associated with a 44% reduction in 30-day case fatality. It was scaled out to the other hyperacute stroke units (HASUs) in the region. Findings showed the bundle could be successfully implemented into new settings, but challenges impeded its implementation. The findings were used to develop an implementation strategy to support roll-out outside the region. The ABC-ICH care bundle was then scaled up as a quality improvement initiative across six regions in the North of England. This paper reports on the qualitative process evaluation that was conducted in parallel.
methodsMultiple qualitative methods (45 interviews, six meeting observations and a document analysis) were used to capture how the bundle was implemented in HASUs across the six regions. We used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to theoretically inform the study.
findingsKey facilitators in the uptake of the bundle were the clarity of the intervention, its compatibility with clinicians' values, its perceived relative advantage compared with current ICH care and the ability to locally tailor protocols. Key barriers to implementing the care pathway (judicious referral to neurosurgery) included lack of recipients' skills and confidence and prevailing organisational cultural norms which meant that most clinicians continued to refer all patients regardless of whether they met eligibility criteria. Lack of routine monitoring of process targets by local implementation teams impeded use of plan-do-study-act cycles to further improve care. Local contextual issues impeded or enabled effective facilitation.
conclusionThe findings recognise the importance of understanding what happens when the bundle is introduced into new settings outside of its local context and identifies lessons for future national roll-out.
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.