ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Comparison of Major Clinical Outcomes between Accredited and Nonaccredited Hospitals for Inpatient Care of Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
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
Hospital accreditation programs are used worldwide to improve the quality of care and improve patient safety. It is of great help in improving the structure of hospitals, but there are mixed research results on improving the clinical outcome of patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the levels of core clinical outcome indicators after receiving inpatient services from accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). For all patients with AMI admitted to general hospitals in Korea from 2010 to 2017, their 30-day mortality and readmissions and length of stay were compared according to accreditation status. In addition, through a multivariate model that controls various patients' and hospitals' factors, the differences in those indicators were analyzed more accurately. The 30-day mortality of patients admitted to accredited hospitals was statistically significantly lower than that of patients admitted to nonaccredited hospitals. However, for 30-day readmission and length of stay, accreditation did not appear to yield more desirable results. This study shows that when evaluating the clinical impact of hospital accreditation programs, not only the mortality but also various clinical indicators need to be included, and a more comprehensive review is needed.
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.