We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To develop and field test an implementation assessment tool for assessing progress of hospital units in implementing improvements for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in a two-state collaborative, including data on actions implemented by participating teams and contextual factors that may influence their efforts. Using the data collected, learn how implementation actions can be improved and analyze effects of implementation progress on outcome measures.
Design.
We developed the tool as an interview protocol that included quantitative and qualitative items addressing actions on the Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) and clinical interventions for use in guiding data collection via telephone interviews.
Setting.
We conducted interviews with leaders of improvement teams from units participating in the two-state VAP prevention initiative.
Methods.
We collected data from 43 hospital units as they implemented actions for the VAP initiative and performed descriptive analyzes of the data with comparisons across the 2 states.
Results.
Early in the VAP prevention initiative, most units had made only moderate progress overall in using many of the CUSP actions known to support their improvement processes. For contextual factors, a relatively small number of barriers were found to have important negative effects on implementation progress (in particular, barriers related to workload and time issues). We modified coaching provided to the unit teams to reinforce training in weak spots that the interviews identified.
Conclusion.
These assessments provided important new knowledge regarding the implementation science of quality improvement projects, including feedback during implementation, and give a better understanding of which factors most affect implementation.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.