Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing Two Quality Improvement Interventions Across 10 Pediatric Intensive Care Units: Video Laryngoscopy-Assisted Coaching and Apneic Oxygenation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand facilitators and barriers to implementation of quality improvement (QI) efforts, this study examined 2 evidence-based interventions, video laryngoscopy (VL)-assisted coaching, and apneic oxygenation (AO). One focus group with frontline clinicians was held at each of the 10 participating pediatric intensive care units. Qualitative analysis identified common and unique themes. Intervention fidelity was monitored with a priori defined success as >50% VL-assisted coaching or >80% AO use for 3 consecutive months. Eighty percent of intensive care units with VL-assisted coaching and 20% with AO met this criteria during the study period. Common facilitator themes were adequate device accessibility, having a QI culture, and strong leadership. Common barrier themes included poor device accessibility and perception of delay in care. A consistently identified theme in the successful sites was strong QI leadership, while unsuccessful sites consistently identified insufficient education. These facilitators and barriers should be proactively addressed during dissemination of these 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it