Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31206053›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2019

Improving assessment of children with suspected respiratory tract infection in general practice.

Cheng Chen, Ruth Crowley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cheng ChenBarking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8817-4045
Ruth CrowleyAvon Road Surgery, Upminster, UK.
Barking, Havering And Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) in children is one of the most common reasons for general practice (GP) attendance over the winter months. It is crucial to be able to risk stratify and determine the severity of illness in these patients. It is important both to recognise those who are clinically unwell and require treatment escalation, and also to not overprescribe antibiotics due to the ongoing problem of antibiotic overuse and resistance. This quality improvement project was undertaken to improve the way in which these consultations were held and also the way they were documented. It was recognised that key features in assessing a potentially unwell child were to measure their heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR). As children can often deteriorate rapidly and their clinical course may not necessarily be easy to predict, we wanted to make sure that parents were being provided with safety netting information in the event that the child should become more unwell after the consultation. Through the course of our project, we managed to improve the proportion of consultations for URTI or 'viral illness' in children in which HR and RR were documented from 57% to 100%. The proportion of consultations in which safety netting information for parents was discussed and documented improved from 48% to 96%. By using quality improvement strategies, we have succeeded in improving both the safety and efficiency in the way children who present with URTI are assessed in GP.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsClinical CompetenceGeneral PracticeHumansPhysical ExaminationRespiratory Tract InfectionsSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkloadAnti-Bacterial Agentsgeneral practicePDSAquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31206053
PMCPMC6542419
OpenAlexW2938289783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.