ArticleThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2013
Outcomes of the patients in the respiratory care center are not associated with the seniority of the caring resident.
Article in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multidisciplinary in-hospital teams improve patient outcomes: A review.Surgical neurology international · 2014Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although many studies show that the experience level of physicians is significantly associated with the outcomes of their patients, little evidence exists to show whether junior residents provide worse care than senior residents. This study was conducted to analyze whether the experience level of residents may affect the outcomes of patients cared for in a well-organized setting. We conducted a 7-year retrospective study utilizing statistical data from a respiratory care center (RCC) in a medical center between October 2004 and September 2011. In addition to the two medical residents who had been trained in the intensive care unit (ICU), the RCC team also included attending physicians in charge, a nurse practitioner, a case manager, a dietitian, a pharmacist, a social worker, registered respiratory therapists, and nursing staff. Weaning from mechanical ventilation was done according to an established weaning protocol. The 84 months analyzed were classified into five groups according to the levels of the two residents working in the RCC: R2 + R1, R2 + R2, R3 + R1, R3 + R2, and R3 + R3. The monthly weaning rate and mortality rate were the major outcomes, while the mean ventilator days, rate of return to the ICU, and nosocomial infection incidence rate were the minor outcomes. The groups did not differ significantly in the monthly weaning rate, mortality rate, mean ventilator days, rate of return to the ICU, or nosocomial infection incidence rate (p > 0.1). Further analysis showed no significant difference in the monthly weaning rate and mortality rate between months with a first-year resident (R1) and those with two senior residents (p > 0.2). Although the weaning rate in the RCC gradually improved over time (p < 0.001), there was no significant difference in the monthly weaning rate between the groups after adjusting for time and disease severity (p > 0.7). Thus, we concluded that in a well-organized setting, the levels (experiences) of residents did not significantly affect patient outcomes. This result may be attributed to the well-developed weaning protocol and teamwork processes in place, which avoid a large effect from any single factor and provide stable and high-quality care to the patients.
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.