ArticleJournal of infection prevention2018
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- RethinkingEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2024Article
- Article
- Root cause analysis forJournal of infection prevention · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, in addition to an on-the-spot investigation into hospital-onset METHODOLOGY: Over two years, 84 cases of hospital-onset CDI cases were reviewed by the MDT-RCA forum.
resultsAmong this cohort, no additional learning outcomes were identified by the MDT-RCAs over those that were found by on-the-spot investigations. In total, 543 staff members attended the MDT-RCAs at a potential cost to the Trust of £23,795.74-£51,670.10. The Trust appealed against financial penalties for 27 cases and 14 were successful, i.e. £140,000 would have been avoided had targets been breached by 14 cases. However, targets were only breached by two cases, meaning only £20,000 in fines was avoided. Deducting this from the total costs of the MDT-RCA meant the Trust lost £3,795.74-£31,670.10.
conclusionOver the two years reviewed, the MDT-RCA proved to be costly to the Trust, with no additional learning or quality improvement measures identified.
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.