Sepsis screening protocol implementation: a clinician-validated rapid realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The failed or partial implementation of clinical practices negatively impacts patient safety and increases systemic inefficiencies. Implementation of sepsis screening guidelines has been undertaken in many settings with mixed results. Without a theoretical understanding of what leads to successful implementation, improving implementation will continue to be ad hoc or intuitive. This study proposes a programme theory for how and why the successful implementation of sepsis screening guidelines can occur. METHODS: A rapid realist review was conducted to develop a focused programme theory for the implementation of sepsis screening guidelines. An independent two-reviewer approach was used to iteratively extract and synthesise context and mechanism data. Theoretical context-mechanism-outcome propositions were refined and validated by clinicians using a focus group and individual realist interviews. Implementation resources and clinical reasoning were differentiated in articulating mechanisms. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were included in the rapid review. The theoretical domains framework was identified as the salient substantive theory informing the programme theory. The theory consisted of five main middle-range propositions. Three promoting mechanisms included positive belief about the benefits of the protocol, belief in the legitimacy of using the protocol and trust within the clinical team. Two inhibiting mechanisms included pessimism about the protocol being beneficial and pessimism about the team. Successful implementation was defined as achieving fidelity and sustained use of the intervention. Two intermediate outcomes, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and adoption, were necessary to achieve before successful implementation. CONCLUSION: This rapid realist review synthesised key information from the literature and clinician feedback to develop a theory-based approach to clinical implementation of sepsis screening. The programme theory presents knowledge users with an outline of how and why clinical interventions lead to successful implementation and could be applied in other clinical areas to improve quality and safety.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.249 | 0.561 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".