ArticleBMJ quality & safety2018
National hospital mortality surveillance system: a descriptive analysis.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of changes in coding on mortality reports using the example of sepsis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Improving mortality outcomes in aspiration pneumonia: training, technology and teamwork.BMJ open quality · 2022Article
- What is the relationship between mortality alerts and other indicators of quality of care? A national cross-sectional study.Journal of health services research & policy · 2020Article
- Associations between work satisfaction, engagement and 7-day patient mortality: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Timeliness, Simplicity, Acceptability, and Flexibility in Child Mortality Surveillance System for Children Aged 1-59 Months in Iran.International journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo provide a description of the Imperial College Mortality Surveillance System and subsequent investigations by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals receiving mortality alerts.
backgroundThe mortality surveillance system has generated monthly mortality alerts since 2007, on 122 individual diagnosis and surgical procedure groups, using routinely collected hospital administrative data for all English acute NHS hospital trusts. The CQC, the English national regulator, is notified of each alert. This study describes the findings of CQC investigations of alerting trusts.
methodsWe carried out (1) a descriptive analysis of alerts (2007-2016) and (2) an audit of CQC investigations in a subset of alerts (2011-2013).
resultsBetween April 2007 and October 2016, 860 alerts were generated and 76% (654 alerts) were sent to trusts. Alert volumes varied over time (range: 40-101). Septicaemia (except in labour) was the most commonly alerting group (11.5% alerts sent). We reviewed CQC communications in a subset of 204 alerts from 96 trusts. The CQC investigated 75% (154/204) of alerts. In 90% of these pursued alerts, trusts returned evidence of local case note reviews (140/154). These reviews found areas of care that could be improved in 69% (106/154) of alerts. In 25% (38/154) trusts considered that identified failings in care could have impacted on patient outcomes. The CQC investigations resulted in full trust action plans in 77% (118/154) of all pursued alerts.
conclusionThe mortality surveillance system has generated a large number of alerts since 2007. Quality of care problems were found in 69% of alerts with CQC investigations, and one in four trusts reported that failings in care may have an impact on patient outcomes. Identifying whether mortality alerts are the most efficient means to highlight areas of substandard care will require further investigation.
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.