ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2017
Impact of an Expanded Hospital Recognition Program for Stroke Quality of Care.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2017. 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.
- Defect-free care trends in the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program, 2008-2018.American heart journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2009, the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) program offered additional recognition if hospitals performed well on certain stroke quality measures. We sought to determine whether quality of care for all hospitals participating in GWTG-Stroke improved with this expanded recognition program. METHODS AND
resultsWe examined hospital-level performance on 6 quality of care (process) measures and 1 defect-free composite quality measure for stroke following expansion of the existing performance measure recognition program. Compliance with all measures improved following launch of the expanded program, and this rate increased significantly for all 9 measures. When evaluated as the relative rate of increase in use over time, process improvement slowed significantly (P<0.05) following launch of the program for 2 measures, and accelerated significantly for 1 measure. However, when evaluated as a gap in care, the decrease in the quality gap was greater following launch of the program for 5 of 6 (83%) measures. There was no evidence that other processes of stroke care suffered as the result of the increase in measures and expanded recognition program.
conclusionsWhile care for stroke continues to improve in this country, expanded hospital process performance recognition had mixed results in accelerating this improvement. However, the quality gap continues to shrink among those participating in provider performance programs.
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.