↓ Skip to main content

What are effective strategies for the implementation of care bundles on ICUs: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What are effective strategies for the implementation of care bundles on ICUs: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0306-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjon J. Borgert, Astrid Goossens, Dave A. Dongelmans

Abstract

Care bundles have proven to be effective in improving clinical outcomes. It is not known which strategies are the most effective to implement care bundles. A systematic review was conducted to determine the strategies used to implement care bundles in adult intensive care units and to assess the effects of these strategies when implementing bundles. The databases MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid/Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL were searched for eligible studies until January 31, 2015. Studies with (non)randomised designs on central line, ventilator or sepsis bundles were included if implementation strategies and bundle compliance were reported. Methodological quality was assessed by using the Downs and Black checklist. Data extraction and quality assessments were independently performed by two reviewers. In total, 1533 records were screened and 47 studies were finally included. In 49 %, pre/post designs were used, 38 % prospective cohorts, and the remaining studies used retrospective designs (6 %), interrupted time series (4 %) and longitudinal designs (2 %). The methodological quality was classified as 'fair' in 77 %, and the remaining as 'good' (13 %) and 'poor' (11 %). The most frequently used strategies were education (86 %), reminders (71 %) and audit and feedback (63 %). Our results show that compliance is influenced by multiple factors, i.e. types and numbers of elements varied and different compliance measurements were reported. Furthermore, compliance was calculated within different time frames. Also, detailed information about compliance, such as numerators and denominators, was not reported. Therefore, recalculation of consistent monthly compliance levels was not possible. The three most frequently used strategies were education, reminders and audit and feedback. We conclude that the heterogeneity among the included studies was high due to the variety in study designs, number and types of elements and types of compliance measurements. Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the poor quality of the studies, conclusions about which strategy results in the highest levels of bundle compliance could not be determined. We strongly recommend that studies in quality improvement should be reported in a formalised way in order to be able to compare research findings. It is imperative that authors follow the standards for quality improvement reporting excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines whenever they report quality improvement studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 19%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 37 25%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 18%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 42 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,900,707
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,162
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,433
of 263,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.