Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34546374›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2021

Association of Hospital Public Quality Reporting With Electronic Health Record Medication Safety Performance.

A Jay Holmgren, David W Bates

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Examining medication ordering errors using AHRQ network of patient safety databases.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Observational
  3. 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

2 authors.

A Jay HolmgrenUniversity of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
David W BatesBrigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite billions spent in public investment, electronic health records (EHRs) have not delivered on the promise of large quality and safety improvement. Simultaneously, there is debate on whether public quality reporting is a useful tool to incentivize quality improvement. Objective: To evaluate whether publicly reported feedback was associated with hospital improvement in an evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) safety performance. Design, Settings, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial included US hospitals that participated in the Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) Evaluation Tool in the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, a national quality reporting program that evaluates safety performance of hospital CDS using simulated orders and patients, in 2017 to 2018. A sharp regression discontinuity design was used to identify the association of receiving negative feedback with hospital performance improvement in the subsequent year. Data were analyzed from January through September 2020. Exposures: Publicly reported quality feedback. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was improvement from 2017 to 2018 on the Leapfrog CPOE Evaluation Tool, using regression discontinuity model estimates of the association of receiving negative publicly reported feedback with quality improvement. Results: A total of 1183 hospitals were included, with a mean (SD) CPOE score of 59.3% (16.3%) at baseline. Hospitals receiving negative feedback improved 8.44 (95% CI, 0.09 to 16.80) percentage points more in the subsequent year compared with hospitals that received positive feedback on the same evaluation. This change was driven by differences in improvement in basic CDS capabilities (β = 8.71 [95%CI, 1.67 to 18.73]) rather than advanced CDS (β = 6.15 [95% CI, -9.11 to 26.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, publicly reported feedback was associated with quality improvement, suggesting targeted measurement and reporting of process quality may be an effective policy lever to encourage improvement in specific areas. Clinical decision support represents an important tool in ensuring patient safety and decreasing adverse drug events, especially for complex patients and those with multiple chronic conditions who often receive several different drugs during an episode of care.

Indexed as

Public Reporting of Healthcare DataElectronic Health RecordsHealth Care SurveysHospitalsHumansMedical Order Entry SystemsQuality ImprovementRegression AnalysisSafety ManagementUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34546374
PMCPMC8456388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.