ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Addressing Challenges of Baseline Variability in the Clinical Setting: Lessons from an Emergency Department.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosing an overcrowded emergency department from its Electronic Health Records.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Improving Wait Times for Children with Caregivers with Limited English Proficiency in the Emergency Department.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To demonstrate methods of adjusting data in quality improvement projects for better learning about interventions over time.
methodsA secondary analysis of data from a quality improvement project to improve patient wait times at an urban academic pediatric emergency department using electronic medical data from 2015 to 2018. The primary outcome was the wait times for low-acuity patients. Control charts were used to determine if the interventions were effective in reducing wait times. Two different data adjustment techniques were applied to account for changes in patient volume and seasonal effects on the outcome measure.
resultsWe more effectively demonstrated improved patient wait times after adjusting for patient volume or seasonality. Patient wait times decreased from 75.2 to 72.9 minutes after the intervention; a 3% decrease sustained over 18 months. A strong correlation between patient volume and wait times was noted. Process stability was achieved on the control charts after data adjustment, with one centerline shift after data adjustment in contrast to 5 centerline shifts required before data adjustment.
conclusionAdjusting for seasonality or patient volume created process stability and improved learning from control charts. After adjustment, we sustained decreased patient wait times more than a year out from the original intervention Adjusting by patient volume seems to be a preferred method of adjustment. Our findings support the importance of adjusting for baseline variability affected by seasonality or patient volumes, especially in flow projects, as a high yield method for process improvement.
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.