ArticleQuality & safety in health care2007
Primary healthcare teams' views on using mortality data to review clinical policies.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2007. 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.
- Rationalising data use for general practice: a missed opportunity?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
- Estimating smoking prevalence in general practice using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF).BMJ open · 2014Observational
- Making haste slowly: the response to the Shipman Inquiry?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- Causes of death certification of adults: an exploratory cross-sectional study at a university hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveA UK-wide scheme to monitor mortality in general practices has been recommended to improve safety. A monitoring scheme might also have a role in improving quality by informing clinical policies. This study investigated the views of primary care teams on the desirable characteristics of mortality data to help them review and plan their clinical policies.
setting10 general practices in Leicestershire, UK.
methodsDevelopment of a format for presentation of mortality data for primary care teams, presentations of the data to team meetings, and subsequent interviews of 16 general practitioners and nurses to identify issues about the improvement and use of the data for informing clinical policies.
resultsThe presentation was important in helping teams to understand the data. Comparisons should be between practices with similar patient populations, and information provided on deaths from diseases potentially amenable to prevention through clinical intervention. Practice teams used the data in reflecting on their own clinical care.
conclusionsPresentation of data about mortality in practice populations can enable practices to reflect on their clinical policies. The proposed national scheme for monitoring mortality should provide data in a format that helps teams to improve the quality of care as well as improve patient safety.
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.