Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28383536›Full record

Observational studyJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2017

Variation in quality report viewing by providers and correlation with NICU quality metrics.

N Wahid, M V Bennett, J B Gould, J Profit, B Danielsen, H C Lee

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

N WahidSchool of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.
M V BennettDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
J B GouldDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
J ProfitDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
B DanielsenHealth Information Solutions, Roseville, California, USA.
H C LeeDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatal and Developmental Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo examine variation in quality report viewing and assess correlation between provider report viewing and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) quality.

methodsVariation in report viewing sessions for 129 California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative NICUs was examined. NICUs were stratified into tertiles based on their antenatal steroid (ANS) use and hospital-acquired infection (HAI) rates to compare report viewing session counts.

resultsThe number of report viewing sessions initiated by providers varied widely over a 2-year period (median=11; mean=25.5; s.d.=45.19 sessions). Report viewing was not associated with differences in ANS use. Facilities with low HAI rates had less frequent report viewing. Facilities with high report views had significant improvements in HAI rates over time.

conclusionsAvailable audit and feedback reports are utilized inconsistently across California NICUs despite evidence that report viewing is associated with improvements in quality of care delivery. Further studies are needed for reports to reach their theoretical potential.

Indexed as

CaliforniaCross InfectionHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Very Low Birth WeightIntensive Care Units, NeonatalLogistic ModelsMedical AuditOutcome Assessment, Health CareSteroidsSteroids

Identifiers

PMID28383536

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.