Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28607037›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018

International comparison of emergency hospital use for infants: data linkage cohort study in Canada and England.

Katie Harron, Ruth Gilbert, David Cromwell, Sam Oddie, Astrid Guttmann, Jan van der Meulen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katie HarronLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3418-2856
Ruth GilbertGreat Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
David CromwellLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sam OddieBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Astrid GuttmannInstitute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jan van der MeulenDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare emergency hospital use for infants in Ontario (Canada) and England.

methodsWe conducted a population-based data linkage study in infants born ≥34 weeks' gestation between 2010 and 2013 in Ontario (n=253 930) and England (n=1 361 128). Outcomes within 12 months of postnatal discharge were captured in hospital records. The primary outcome was all-cause unplanned admissions. Secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, any unplanned hospital contact (either ED or admission) and mortality. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate risk factors for infant admission.

resultsThe percentage of infants with ≥1 unplanned admission was substantially lower in Ontario (7.9% vs 19.6% in England) while the percentage attending ED but not admitted was higher (39.8% vs 29.9% in England). The percentage of infants with any unplanned hospital contact was similar between countries (42.9% in Ontario, 41.6% in England) as was mortality (0.05% in Ontario, 0.06% in England). Infants attending ED were less likely to be admitted in Ontario (7.3% vs 26.2%), but those who were admitted were more likely to stay for ≥1 night (94.0% vs 55.2%). The strongest risk factors for admission were completed weeks of gestation (adjusted OR for 34-36 weeks vs 39+ weeks: 2.44; 95% CI 2.29 to 2.61 in Ontario and 1.66; 95% CI 1.62 to 1.70 in England) and young maternal age.

conclusionsChildren attending ED in England were much more likely to be admitted than those in Ontario. The tendency towards more frequent, shorter admissions in England could be due to more pressure to admit within waiting time targets, or less availability of paediatric expertise in ED. Further evaluations should consider where best to focus resources, including in-hospital, primary care and paediatric care in the community.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleGestational AgeHospital MortalityHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLength of StayMaleOntarioPatient AdmissionRetrospective StudiesRisk Factorsemergency departmenthealthcare quality improvementhealth services researchhospital medicinepaediatrics

Identifiers

PMID28607037
PMCPMC5750429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.