2021
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06787-5
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Rapid Cycle Implementation and Retrospective Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 Checklist in Labor and Delivery

Abstract: Background Preparedness efforts for a COVID-19 outbreak required redesign and implementation of a perioperative workflow for the management of obstetric patients. In this report we describe factors which influenced rapid cycle implementation of a novel comprehensive checklist for the perioperative care of the COVID-19 parturient. Methods Within our labour and delivery unit, implementation of a novel checklist for the COVID-19 parturient requiring p… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These included: conflicting opinions on best IPAC practices (outer setting), limited flow of information from senior leaders to frontline staff (inner setting), reduced access to rehabilitation equipment and understanding of how to provide high quality rehabilitative care in this context (intervention characteristics), willingness and self‐efficacy among frontline staff (individual characteristics), lack of opportunity to trial the intervention on a small scale and reverse or change course if warranted (intervention characteristics); and lack of time to reflect on and assess effectiveness (process). While these barriers are similar to those discussed in other studies implementing health interventions during COVID, 15 , 31 , 32 , 33 this was the first study to explore these challenges in a rehabilitation context and adds to the growing literature exploring rehabilitation in COVID care.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These included: conflicting opinions on best IPAC practices (outer setting), limited flow of information from senior leaders to frontline staff (inner setting), reduced access to rehabilitation equipment and understanding of how to provide high quality rehabilitative care in this context (intervention characteristics), willingness and self‐efficacy among frontline staff (individual characteristics), lack of opportunity to trial the intervention on a small scale and reverse or change course if warranted (intervention characteristics); and lack of time to reflect on and assess effectiveness (process). While these barriers are similar to those discussed in other studies implementing health interventions during COVID, 15 , 31 , 32 , 33 this was the first study to explore these challenges in a rehabilitation context and adds to the growing literature exploring rehabilitation in COVID care.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 63%
“…While these are key steps for the implementation of health care innovations, 13,[26][27][28][29] crisis conditions, like those observed in the pandemic, made it difficult to engage in collaborative decision-making. 30 during COVID, 15,[31][32][33] this was the first study to explore these challenges in a rehabilitation context and adds to the growing literature exploring rehabilitation in COVID care.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The CFIR approach has been criticised when applied recently to a precision medicine context for being time-intensive and potentially delaying the identification of findings (Best et al, 2021). In line with this criticism, the CFIR approach indicates some recent attempts by CFIR's creators and other authors to speed up the qualitative data collection and deductive analytic process for contexts with rapid change (Gale et al, 2019;Nevedal et al, 2021;Zucco et al, 2021).…”
Section: A Methodological Roadmap To Speeding Up Qualitative Data Col...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following publication of the original article [ 1 ], the caption to Fig. 1 was inadvertently truncated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%