Observational studyBMC health services research2025
A mixed-methods observational study of strategies for success in implementation science: overcoming emergency departments hurdles.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure is a major public health concern, affecting 6.7 million Americans. An estimated 16% of emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure (AHF) are discharged home. Our Get with the Guidelines in Emergency Department Patients with Heart Failure (GUIDED-HF) toolkit aims to improve AHF self-care and facilitate safer transitions in care for these patients. We describe implementation barriers and facilitators, and the selection and refinement of implementation strategies, to facilitate future GUIDED-HF implementation.
methodsA mixed-methods cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four United States EDs in two diverse healthcare systems in the Pacific West and Midwest. Data were collected using a survey and interviews with ED providers, nurses, and leaders. The survey assessed the ED context using the context scale of the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research informed interviews. Quantitative data were summarized using medians (interquartile ranges) or percentages (frequencies). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences in the healthcare system and profession. Qualitative data were analyzed and summarized using rapid qualitative analysis. Convergence of quantitative and qualitative data was used to inform specific refining of implementation strategies to the local context (e.g., who should serve as champions, how best practice alerts should be implemented).
resultsParticipants were predominately white (76%) with median (IQR) age 37.0 (32.0, 41.0). ED leaders/administrators, providers, and nurses comprised 15%, 55%, and 29% of participants, respectively. Sites reported an ORCA context scale score of 3.7 [3.4, 4.0] (scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Comparison of scores by profession showed a significant difference in the context score among providers (3.9 [3.5, 4.0]), leaders (3.7 [3.5, 4.0]), and nurses (3.6 [3.0, 3.9]) (p = 0.048). Qualitative data indicated implementation barriers (e.g., resource limitations, patient health literacy), facilitators (e.g., GUIDED-HF is patient-centric; site and intervention congruent values, norms, and goals), and site-specific needs due to contextual factors (e.g., education needs, feedback mechanisms, champions).
conclusionsSpecific determinants of implementation exist in ED settings and require the refining of implementation strategies to overcome site-specific barriers and enhance facilitators.
trial registrationn/a.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.