Contextual Factors Affecting Implementation of In-hospital Pediatric CPR Quality Improvement Interventions in a Resuscitation Collaborative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pediatric quality improvement (QI) collaboratives are multisite clinical networks that support cooperative learning. Our goal is to identify the contextual facilitators and barriers to implementing QI resuscitation interventions within a multicenter resuscitation collaborative. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation of the contextual facilitators and barriers to implementation of a resuscitation QI bundle. We administered a quantitative questionnaire, the Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ), to the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality (pediRES-Q) Collaborative. Its primary goal is to optimize the care of children who experience in-hospital cardiac arrest through a resuscitation QI bundle. We also conducted semistructured phone interviews with site primary investigators adapted from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research qualitative interview guide. RESULTS: = 0.02). We conducted 8 interviews with the local QI team leadership. Contextual facilitators included a unified institutional approach to QI, a fail forward climate, leadership support, strong microculture, knowledge of other organizations, and prioritization of goals. Contextual barriers included low team tenure, no specific allocation of resources, lack of formalized QI training, and lack of support and buy-in by leaders and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Using mixed methods, we identified an association between the local QI team's strength and the successful implementation of the QI interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".