Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31732584›Full record

ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2019

Quality improvement and emergency laparotomy care: what have we learnt from recent major QI efforts?

Tim Stephens, Carolyn Johnston, Sarah Hare

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Emergency Laparotomies: Causes, Pathophysiology, and Outcomes.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Review
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

3 authors.

Tim StephensBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK t.t.stephens@qmul.ac.uk.
Carolyn JohnstonSt Georges University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK and quality improvement lead, National Emergency Laparotomy Audit, Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK.
Sarah HareMedway Maritime Hospital, Kent, UK and clinical lead, National Emergency Laparotomy Audit, Royal College of Anaesthetists, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More than 1.53 million adults undergo inpatient surgery in the UK NHS. Patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery have a much greater risk of death than patients admitted for elective surgery. Widespread variations in key standards of care between hospitals exist and are associated with differences in mortality rates.Recently there have been three large-scale initiatives to improve quality of care for emergency laparotomy patients: the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit, the enhanced perioperative care for high-risk patients trial and the Emergency Laparotomy Collaborative. Here we provide a critical review of what we currently know about the use of structured methods for improving the quality of healthcare services, with reference to the three initiatives. We find that using structured methods to improve care is the hallmark of quality improvement but attention must too be paid to the context in which these methods are used.

Indexed as

LaparotomyPerioperative CareQuality ImprovementEmergency Medical ServicesHumansUnited Kingdomoperative mortalityPostoperative care/methodsquality improvementsurgical procedures

Identifiers

PMID31732584
PMCPMC6899256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.