Implementation of a hospital-wide multidisciplinary blunt chest injury care bundle (ChIP): fidelity of delivery evaluation

Sarah Kourouche*, Kate Curtis, Belinda Munroe, Stephen Edward Asha, Ian Carey, Julie Considine, Margaret Fry, Jack Lyons, Sandy Middleton, Rebecca Mitchell, Ramon Z. Shaban, Annalise Unsworth, Thomas Buckley

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
31 Downloads (Pure)


Background: Ineffective intervention for patients with blunt chest wall injury results in high rates of morbidity and mortality. To address this, a blunt chest injury care bundle protocol (ChIP) was developed, and a multifaceted plan was implemented using the Behaviour Change Wheel. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reach, fidelity, and dose of the ChIP intervention to discern if it was activated and delivered to patients as intended at two regional Australian hospitals. Methods: This is a pretest and post-test implementation evaluation study. The proportion of ChIP activations and adherence to ChIP components received by eligible patients were compared before and after intervention over a 4-year period. Sample medians were compared using the nonparametric median test, with 95% confidence intervals. Differences in proportions for categorical data were compared using the two-sample z-test. Results/Findings: Over the 19-month postimplementation period, 97.1% (n = 440) of eligible patients received ChIP (reach). The median activation time was 134 min; there was no difference in time to activation between business hours and after-hours; time to activation was not associated with comorbidities and injury severity score. Compared with the preimplementation group, the postimplementation group were more likely to receive evidence-based treatments (dose), including high-flow nasal cannula use (odds ratio [OR] = 6.8 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 4.8–9.6]), incentive spirometry in the emergency department (OR = 7.5, [95% CI = 3.2–17.6]), regular analgesia (OR = 2.4 [95% CI = 1.5–3.8]), regional analgesia (OR = 2.8 [95% CI = 1.5–5.3]), patient-controlled analgesia (OR = 1.8 [95% CI = 1.3–2.4]), and multiple specialist team reviews, e.g., surgical review (OR = 9.9 [95% CI = 6.1–16.1]). Conclusions: High fidelity of delivery was achieved and sustained over 19 months for implementation of a complex intervention in the acute context through a robust implementation plan based on theoretical frameworks. There were significant and sustained improvements in care practices known to result in better patient outcomes. Findings from this evaluation can inform future implementation programs such as ChIP and other multidisciplinary interventions in an emergency or acute care context.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)113-122
Number of pages10
JournalAustralian Critical Care
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2022

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd 2021. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.


  • Behaviour change
  • Blunt chest wall injury
  • Emergency
  • Fidelity of delivery
  • Implementation plan
  • Implementation strategy
  • Intervention fidelity
  • Nursing
  • Process evaluation
  • Treatment fidelity


Dive into the research topics of 'Implementation of a hospital-wide multidisciplinary blunt chest injury care bundle (ChIP): fidelity of delivery evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this