↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of barriers and facilitators in the implementation of appropriate use criteria for elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
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
Assessment of barriers and facilitators in the implementation of appropriate use criteria for elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12872-018-0901-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Lambert-Kerzner, Charles Maynard, Marina McCreight, Amy Ladebue, Katherine M. Williams, Kelty B. Fehling, Steven M. Bradley

Abstract

The use of inappropriate elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has decreased over time, but hospital-level variation in the use of inappropriate PCI persists. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines may inform efforts to improve elective PCI appropriateness. All hospitals performing PCI in Washington State were categorized by their use of inappropriate elective PCI in 2010 to 2013. Semi-structured, qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 17 individual interviews at 13 sites in Washington State to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the AUC guidelines. An inductive and deductive, team-based analytical approach, drawing primarily on Matrix analysis was performed to identify factors affecting implementation of the AUC. Specific facilitators were identified that supported successful implementation of the AUC. These included collaborative catheterization laboratory environments that allow all staff to participate with questions and opinions; ongoing AUC education with catheterization laboratory teams and referring providers; internal AUC peer review processes; interventional cardiologist be directly involved with the pre-procedural review process; checklist-based algorithms for pre-procedural documentation; systems redesign to include insurance companies; and AUC educational information with patients. Barriers to implementation of the AUC included external pressures, such as competition for patients, and the lack of shared medical records with sites that referred patients for coronary angiography. The identified facilitators enabled sites to successfully implement the AUC. Catheterization laboratories struggling to successfully implement the AUC may consider utilizing these strategies to improve their processes to improve patient selection for elective PCI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Librarian 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 17 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Psychology 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,543,612
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#851
of 1,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,913
of 330,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,648 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 330,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.