Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32675157›Full record

ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2020

The impact of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England: a review of the evidence.

Pauline Heslop, Elena Baker-Glenn, Peter Fleming, Marian Knight, Marisa Mason, Pauline Turnbull, Clare Wade

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Pauline HeslopUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK pauline.heslop@bristol.ac.uk.
Elena Baker-GlennRoyal College of Psychiatrists, London, UK.
Peter FlemingUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Marian KnightUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Marisa MasonNational Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, London, UK.
Pauline TurnbullNational Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health, Manchester, UK.
Clare WadeRoyal College of Physicians, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England.

methodsWe undertook a scoping review of the published literature for evidence of the impact of any of the current programmes or their predecessors, and asked programme leads to share examples of the impact of their work. Data were thematically analysed.

findingsEvidence about impact related to clinicians' awareness and practice, structural aspects of healthcare, processes of care and patient outcomes.

conclusionsThe national clinical outcome review programmes appear to have had significant impact, but none are funded to assess the outcome and impact of the recommendations they make or to deliver a programme of change. There is no structured and systematic way in which the findings and recommendations of each programme are taken forward, nor in which the findings from across programmes are collated and considered.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEnglandHumansClinical outcome review programmeseffectivenessimpactmortality review programmesservice improvement

Identifiers

PMID32675157
PMCPMC7385773

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.