Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24902727›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Unexpectedly long hospital stays as an indicator of risk of unsafe care: an exploratory study.

Ine Borghans, Karin D Hekkert, Lya den Ouden, Sezgin Cihangir, Jan Vesseur, Rudolf B Kool, Gert P Westert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Streamlining Care: Effective Approaches to Decreasing Observation Status Length of Stay in Community Medical Centers.Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ine BorghansScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud university medical centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Dutch Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Karin D HekkertDutch Hospital Data (DHD), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lya den OudenDutch Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sezgin CihangirDutch Hospital Data (DHD), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan VesseurDutch Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rudolf B KoolScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud university medical centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gert P WestertScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud university medical centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe developed an outcome indicator based on the finding that complications often prolong the patient's hospital stay. A higher percentage of patients with an unexpectedly long length of stay (UL-LOS) compared to the national average may indicate shortcomings in patient safety. We explored the utility of the UL-LOS indicator.

settingWe used data of 61 Dutch hospitals. In total these hospitals had 1 400 000 clinical discharges in 2011.

participantsThe indicator is based on the percentage of patients with a prolonged length of stay of more than 50% of the expected length of stay and calculated among survivors.

interventionsNo interventions were made. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were the variability of the indicator across hospitals, the stability over time, the correlation between the UL-LOS and standardised mortality and the influence on the indicator of hospitals that did have problems discharging their patients to other health services such as nursing homes.

resultsIn order to compare hospitals properly the expected length of stay was computed based on comparison with benchmark populations. The standardisation was based on patients' age, primary diagnosis and main procedure. The UL-LOS indicator showed considerable variability between the Dutch hospitals: from 8.6% to 20.1% in 2011. The outcomes had relatively small CIs since they were based on large numbers of patients. The stability of the indicator over time was quite high. The indicator had a significant positive correlation with the standardised mortality (r=0.44 (p<0.001)), and no significant correlation with the percentage of patients that was discharged to other facilities than other hospitals and home (r=-0.15 (p>0.05)).

conclusionsThe UL-LOS indicator is a useful addition to other patient safety indicators by revealing variation between hospitals and areas of possible patient safety improvement.

Indexed as

HospitalsQuality Indicators, Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedChildChild, PreschoolHumansInfantLength of StayMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24902727
PMCPMC4054630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.