Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28325859›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Scoping review of potential quality indicators for hip fracture patient care.

Kristen B Pitzul, Sarah E P Munce, Laure Perrier, Lauren Beaupre, Suzanne N Morin, Rhona McGlasson, Susan B Jaglal

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Kristen B PitzulInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah E P MunceToronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Laure PerrierGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lauren BeaupreDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Suzanne N MorinDepartment of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Rhona McGlassonBone and Joint Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Susan B JaglalInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study is to identify existing or potential quality of care indicators (ie, current indicators as well as process and outcome measures) in the acute or postacute period, or across the continuum of care for older adults with hip fracture.

designScoping review.

settingAll care settings. SEARCH STRATEGY: English peer-reviewed studies published from January 2000 to January 2016 were included. Literature search strategies were developed, and the search was peer-reviewed. Two reviewers independently piloted all forms, and all articles were screened in duplicate.

resultsThe search yielded 2729 unique articles, of which 302 articles were included (11.1%). When indicators (eg, in-hospital mortality, acute care length of stay) and potential indicators (eg, comorbidities developed in hospital, walking ability) were grouped by the outcome or process construct they were trying to measure, the most common constructs were measures of mortality (outcome), length of stay (process) and time-sensitive measures (process). There was heterogeneity in definitions within constructs between studies. There was also a paucity of indicators and potential indicators in the postacute period.

conclusionsTo improve quality of care for patients with hip fracture and create a more efficient healthcare system, mechanisms for the measurement of quality of care across the entire continuum, not just during the acute period, are required. Future research should focus on decreasing the heterogeneity in definitions of quality indicators and the development and implementation of quality indicators for the postacute period.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareContinuity of Patient CareHip FracturesHospital MortalityHumansLength of StayPatient CareHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENTREHABILITATION MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID28325859
PMCPMC5372037

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.