Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31745521›Full record

ArticlePediatric quality & safety

Project RedDE: Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed or Delayed Abnormal Laboratory Value Actions.

Michael L Rinke, David G Bundy, Christoph U Lehmann, Moonseong Heo, Jason S Adelman, Amanda Norton, Hardeep Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors.

Michael L RinkeDepartment of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital at Montefiore and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, N.Y.
David G BundyDepartment of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C.
Christoph U LehmannDepartments of Biomedical Informatics and Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
Moonseong HeoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, and School of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.
Jason S AdelmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, N.Y.
Amanda NortonA. Mandatory, Inc., Ithaca, N.Y.
Hardeep SinghCenter for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Center of Innovation, Houston, Tex.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID31745521
PMCPMC6805103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.