Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25949646›Full record

ArticleLondon journal of primary care2011

Using routinely gathered data to evaluate locally led service improvements.

Gilly Stoddart, Robert Gale, Chantelle Peat, Sarah McInnes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in London journal of primary care, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Gilly StoddartPBC Manager, NHS Ealing.
Robert GaleInterim Director of ICT, NHS Ealing.
Chantelle PeatSenior Information Analyst, Portico Consulting.
Sarah McInnesGP Commissioning Projects Officer, NHS Ealing.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Between 2009 and 2010 NHS Ealing tested the feasibility of a) combining data from more than one data-domain at the same time to quantify patient movement across the primary care/acute hospital boundary, and b) establishing online analyses so they can be constantly updated with near real-time data to compare different subsets of patients. The reports allowed us to see: changes in hospital admissions before and after referral to community matrons of patients with complex conditions from one practice-based commissioning (PBC) groupchanges in hospital bed-days of all patients from one practice or PBC group during a complex intervention designed to assist inter-disciplinary collaboration. Results The teams leading the projects found that the reports gave them confidence in the projects and helped to influence local policy. Discussion GP consortia need to evaluate complex service improvements in order to contain costs and improve quality. They will find such reports helpful to give ongoing feedback and this may help to keep people engaged. Present plans for data warehousing in London do not have this ability - they do not combine data from across the whole health economy, and are focused either on claims validation or risk stratification.

Indexed as

database searchevaluating complex interventionsGP commissioningroutinely gathered data

Identifiers

PMID25949646
PMCPMC3960666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.