ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Project RedDE: Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed or Delayed Abnormal Laboratory Value Actions.
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.
- Improving Diagnostic Performance in Pediatrics: Three Steps Ahead.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Contributing Factors for Pediatric Ambulatory Diagnostic Process Errors: Project RedDE.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Failure of timely abnormal laboratory result follow-up is relatively common and may lead to harm. This study hypothesized that a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) could reduce the frequency of missed or delayed action on abnormal laboratory values.
methodsA national cohort of pediatric practices was cluster-randomized to sequentially receive a QIC intervention: video conferences, transparent data sharing, a "focus on failures," QI coaching, and tools to help reduce missed or delayed action on abnormal laboratory values. Practices recorded the percentage of patients with 5 specific abnormal laboratory values who received an appropriate provider action (control), and then, during an 8-month intervention phase, implemented QI strategies to reduce errors (intervention). Subsequently, practices collected data on laboratory errors while working to reduce unrelated second (sustain phase), and third (maintenance phase) errors. Generalized mixed-effects regression models compared the mean percentage of patients with appropriate actions.
resultsWe randomized 43 practices, of which 31 were included in analyses. Control and intervention phases included 1,357 and 1,426 patients with abnormal laboratory values, respectively. The mean percentage of patients who received appropriate actions did not change comparing control and intervention phases [risk difference (RD) 1%; 95% CI -1%, 3%]. In
conclusionImplementation of a QIC did not reduce the frequency of abnormal laboratory errors in the initial 8-month intervention phase. A significant reduction was appreciated comparing sustain and maintenance phases (months 9-24) to the control phase.
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.