Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDelaney, A.-
dc.contributor.authorAngus, D.-
dc.contributor.authorBellomo, R.-
dc.contributor.authorCameron, P.-
dc.contributor.authorCooper, D.-
dc.contributor.authorFinfer, S.-
dc.contributor.authorHarrison, D.-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, D.-
dc.contributor.authorMyburgh, J.-
dc.contributor.authorPeake, S.-
dc.contributor.authorReade, M.-
dc.contributor.authorWebb, S.-
dc.contributor.authorYealy, D.-
dc.identifier.citationCritical Care (UK), 2008; 12(2):210-1-210-9-
dc.description.abstractComplex interventions, such as the introduction of medical emergency teams or an early goal-directed therapy protocol, are developed from a number of components that may act both independently and inter-dependently. There is an emerging body of literature advocating the use of integrated complex interventions to optimise the treatment of critically ill patients. As with any other treatment, complex interventions should undergo careful evaluation prior to widespread introduction into clinical practice. During the development of an international collaboration of researchers investigating protocol-based approaches to the resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis, we examined the specific issues related to the evaluation of complex interventions. This review outlines some of these issues. The issues specific to trials of complex interventions that require particular attention include determining an appropriate study population and defining current treatments and outcomes in that population, defining the study intervention and the treatment to be used in the control group, and deploying the intervention in a standardised manner. The context in which the research takes place, including existing staffing levels and existing protocols and procedures, is crucial. We also discuss specific details of trial execution, in particular randomization, blinded outcome adjudication and analysis of the results, which are key to avoiding bias in the design and interpretation of such trials. These aspects of study design impact upon the evaluation of complex interventions in critical care. Clinicians should also consider these specific issues when implementing new complex interventions into their practice.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityAnthony Delaney, Derek C Angus, Rinaldo Bellomo, Peter Cameron, D James Cooper, Simon Finfer, David A Harrison, David T Huang, John A Myburgh, Sandra L Peake, Michael C Reade, Steve AR Webb, Donald M Yealy, for the Australian Resuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE), Protocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) and Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe) investigators-
dc.publisherBioMed Central-
dc.rights© 2008 BioMed Central Ltd-
dc.subjectResuscitation in Sepsis Evaluation (ARISE)-
dc.subjectProtocolized Care for Early Septic Shock (ProCESS) Investigators-
dc.subjectProtocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe) Investigators-
dc.subjectCritical Care-
dc.subjectEvidence-Based Medicine-
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic-
dc.subjectPatient Care Team-
dc.subjectGuideline Adherence-
dc.subjectQuality Assurance, Health Care-
dc.titleBench-to-bedside review: the evaluation of complex interventions in critical care-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.orcidPeake, S. [0000-0001-6682-7973]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 2
Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.