Observational studyHospital pediatrics2018
Prospective Observational Study on High-Value Care Topics Discussed on Multidisciplinary Rounds.
Observational study in Hospital pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Value-Based Healthcare From the Perspective of the Healthcare Professional: A Systematic Literature Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Education During Ward Rounds: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Review
- Pediatric Residents' Experiences With High-Value Care at an Academic Children's Hospital.Journal of graduate medical education · 2022Article
- High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care Attitudes in the Graduate Medical Education Learning Environment: Various Stakeholder Attitudes That Residents Misjudge.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- A Faculty Development Workshop for High-Value Care Education Across Clinical Settings.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2018Article
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
Abstract
objectivesEstablishing a high-value care (HVC) culture within an institution requires a multidisciplinary commitment and participation. Bedside rounds provide an ideal environment for role modeling and learning behaviors that promote an HVC culture. However, little is understood regarding the types of HVC discussions that take place at the bedside and who participates in those discussions.
methodsA prospective observational study at a tertiary-care, university-affiliated, free-standing children's hospital. The prevalence of HVC discussions was captured by using the HVC Rounding Tool, a previously developed instrument with established validity evidence. For each observed HVC discussion, raters recorded who initiated the discussion and a description of the topic.
resultsRaters observed 660 patient encounters over 59 separate dates. Of all patient encounters, 29% (191 of 660; 95% confidence interval: 26%-33%) included at least 1 observed HVC discussion. The attending physician or fellow initiated 41% of all HVC discussions, followed by residents or medical students (31%), families (12%), and nurses (7%).
conclusionsDespite a recent focus on improving health care value and educating trainees in the practice of HVC, our study demonstrated that bedside discussions of HVC are occurring with a limited frequency at our institution and that attending physicians initiate the majority of discussions. The capacity of the nonphysician team members to contribute to establishing and sustaining an HVC culture may be underused. Multi-institutional studies are necessary to determine if this is a national trend and whether discussions have an impact on patient outcomes and hospital costs.
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.