ArticleBMJ open2021
Qualitative evaluation of a mandatory provincial programme auditing emergency department return visits.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health care utilization and outcomes of patients seen by virtual urgent care versus in-person emergency department care.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this qualitative study was to evaluate the perceived impact and value of the Return Visit Quality Programme (RVQP), a mandatory province-wide emergency department audit programme.
designWe employed an interpretive descriptive qualitative approach with maximum variation sampling to ensure diverse representation across several geographical and institutional factors. RVQP programme leads were invited to participate in semistructured interviews and snowball sampling was used to reach non-lead physicians to capture the perspectives of those working within the programme.
settingIn Ontario's RVQP, participating emergency departments must audit their return visits resulting in admission to identify issues that can be addressed through quality improvement initiatives.
participantsBetween June and August 2018, we interviewed 32 participants (local programme leads and non-lead physicians) from 23 out of the 86 participating centres.
resultsParticipants' perceived impact and value of the programme was associated with the existence (or absence) and nature of the local quality improvement culture, the implementation approach of the programme within their emergency departments, and key aspects of the programme pertaining to medicolegal concerns and resource availability.
conclusionsThis study of an innovative, large-scale programme aimed at promoting continuous quality improvement in emergency departments showed that while its perceived impact has been meaningful, there are key structural and operational elements that support and hinder this aim. Healthcare leaders should consider these findings when looking to implement large-scale audit or quality improvement programmes.
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.