ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2004
Impact of regionalisation of cardiac surgery in Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of early administration of tetracosactide on mortality and host response in critically ill patients requiring rescue surgery: a sensitivity analysis of the STOPSHOCK phase 3 randomized controlled trial.Military Medical Research · 2024Trial
- Minimum volume standards in German hospitals: do they get along with procedure centralization? A retrospective longitudinal data analysis.BMC health services research · 2015Article
- Renal transplantation: relationship between hospital/surgeon volume and postoperative severe sepsis/graft-failure. a nationwide population-based study.International journal of medical sciences · 2014Article
- Effect of hospital ownership status and payment structure on the adoption and use of drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveAssessment of the impact of the regionalisation of cardiac surgery through the organisational form of a hub&spoke model introduced in the year 2000.
designCase mix adjusted before (1998-1999)-after (2000-2002) comparison of: (a) in-hospital and 30 days mortality rates; (b) proportion of patients timely (within one day) referred for surgery from spoke to hub centres; (c) patients' waiting times to surgery.
settingEmilia-Romagna, an Italian region with four million residents. PATIENTS: 16,512 patients aged > or =18 years and referred to cardiac surgery over the period 1998-2002. MAIN
resultsOverall, taking into account differences in case mix across the whole study period, the implementation of the regionalisation policy was associated with a 22% reduction (OR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.66 to 0.93) in in-hospital mortality rate. The corresponding figure for 30 day mortality was 18% (OR: 0.82: 95%CI: 0.69 to 0.98). The individual centres' volume of cases changed over the study period for all hospitals but two, and the biggest reduction in mortality was seen at the centre with the largest increase in caseload.
conclusionsThis study provides additional evidence on the benefit of regionalisation of cardiac surgery interventions. The system allowed each centre to reach the minimum caseload required to assure good quality of care. These findings suggest that policies aimed at increasing cooperation rather than competition among health service providers have a positive impact on quality of care. Timely referrals for surgery increased by 21% (95%CI: 1.12 to 1.31), and mean waiting times were reduced by 7.5 average days (95%CI: -10.33 to -4.71).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.