ArticleMedicine2021
Care maps are an effective tool for optimizing quality of care of infectious diseases in a resource-constrained short-stay ambulatory care setting.
Article in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractCare maps (CMs), which are innovative, comprehensive, educational, and simple medical tools, were developed for 6 common diseases, including heart failure, stroke, hyperglycemia, urinary tract infection, dengue infection, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, were implemented in a short-stay ambulatory ward. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of and level of clinician satisfaction with CMs in an ambulatory care setting.A retrospective chart review study comparing the quality of care between before and after CM implementation was conducted. The medical records of patients who were admitted to a short-stay ambulatory ward in a tertiary referral center were reviewed. Demographic data, severity of disease, quality of care, length of stay (LOS), admission cost, and CM user satisfaction were collected and recorded.The medical records of 1116 patients were evaluated. Of those, 589 and 527 patients were from before (non-CM group) and after CM (CM group) implementation, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for age, gender, or disease-specific severity the median (interquartile range) total and essential quality scores were significantly higher in the CM group than in the non-CM group [total quality score 85.3 (75.0-92.9) vs 61.1 (50.0-75.0); P < .001, and essential quality scores 90.0 (75.0-100.0) vs 60.0 (40.6-80.0); P < .0001, respectively]. All aspects of quality of care were significantly improved between before and after CM implementation. Overall median LOS was significantly decreased from 3.8 (2.5-5.7) to 3.0 (2.0-4.9) days, but there was no significant decrease for admission cost. However, CMs were able to significantly reduce both LOS and admission cost in the infectious disease-related subgroup. Most CM users reported satisfaction with CMs.CMs were shown to be an effective tool for improving the quality of care in patients with ambulatory infectious diseases. In that patient subgroup, LOS and admission cost were both significantly reduced compared to pre-CM implementation.
Indexed as
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.