ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016
Opportunities for Improvement in the Care of Patients Hospitalized for Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Related Colitis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modern practical management of acute severe colitis.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Day-by-Day Management of the Inpatient With Moderate to Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Article
- Practice pattern variability in the management of acute severe colitis: a UK provider survey.Frontline gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Acute severe ulcerative colitis: latest evidence and therapeutic implications.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2018Review
- Bridges to excellence quality indicators in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD): differences between IBD and non-IBD gastroenterologists.Annals of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Vaccinating Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlgorithms for the diagnosis, management, and follow-up have been proposed for patients hospitalized for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) colitis flare. The degree to which providers adhere to these algorithms is unknown. This study evaluated the quality of care in IBD patients hospitalized for disease-associated exacerbations and factors correlated with higher degrees of care.
methodsRetrospective chart review of 34 patients during 60 admissions to the medicine service for IBD colitis exacerbation between 2005 and 2012 at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Medical Center. Examined factors included laboratory testing, timing of consultation and intravenous steroids, abdominal imaging, endoscopic examination, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, narcotic use, Clostridium difficile and cytomegalovirus testing, symptomatology at discharge, timing of follow-up, and rates of readmission and mortality.
resultsQuality of care varied among the factors studied, ranging from 30.5 % for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis to 84.7 % for gastroenterology consultation within 24 h. Of 60 admissions, 22 % were not tested for C. difficile. Fifteen percent of patients were discharged before meeting commonly used discharge criteria. Eighty percent were seen in clinic at any time post-discharge; 6.7 % were readmitted; 10 % were lost to follow-up; 1.7 % opted for outside follow-up; and 1.7 % expired.
conclusionsThe quality of care for patients admitted with IBD colitis flares is variable. These data outline opportunities for improvement, particularly in regard to pain management, VTE prophylaxis, and follow-up. Further studies are needed to test intervention strategies for practice improvement.
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.