ArticleBMJ open quality2018
Multidisciplinary analysis of invasive meningococcal disease as a framework for continuous quality and safety improvement in regional Australia.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystem factors in a regional Australian health district contributed to avoidable care deviations from invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) management guidelines. Traditional root cause analysis (RCA) is not well-suited to IMD, focusing on individual cases rather than system improvements. As IMD requires complex care across healthcare silos, it presents an opportunity to explore and address system-based patient safety issues. CONTEXT: Baseline assessment of IMD cases (2005-2006) identified inadequate triage, lack of senior clinician review, inconsistent vital sign recording and laboratory delays as common issues, resulting in antibiotic administration delays and inappropriate or premature discharge.
methodsClinical governance, in partnership with clinical and public health services, established a multidisciplinary Meningococcal Reference Group (MRG) to routinely review management of all IMD cases. The MRG comprised representatives from primary care, acute care, public health, laboratory medicine and clinical governance. Baseline data were compared with two subsequent evaluation points (2011-2012 and 2013-2015).
interventionsPhase I involved multidisciplinary process mapping and development of a standardised audit tool from national IMD management guidelines. Phase II involved formalisation of group processes and advocacy for operational change. Phase III focused on dissemination of findings to clinicians and managers.
resultsGreatest care improvements were observed in the final evaluation. Median antibiotic delay decreased from 72 to 42 min and proportion of cases triaged appropriately improved from 38% to 75% between 2013 and 2015. Increasing fatal outcomes were attributed to the emergence of more virulent meningococcal serotypes.
conclusionsThe MRG was a key mechanism for identifying system gaps, advocating for change and enhancing communication and coordination across services. Employing IMD case review as a focus for district-level process reflection presents an innovative patient safety approach, combining the strengths of prospective hazard analysis with more traditional RCA methodologies.
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.