ArticleHealth systems (Basingstoke, England)2022
Incorporating the six aims for quality in the analysis of trauma care.
Article in Health systems (Basingstoke, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods to derive composite indicators used for quality and safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Hospital productivity and value in pay-for-performance healthcare programs.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2025Article
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
The Institute of Medicine proposed six aims for healthcare quality improvement. Nevertheless, trauma care quality research still focuses on one aim at a time. This research investigates how to incorporate all aims into trauma care quality assessments using data from the Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program. Through a literature review, we identified quantifiable metrics for most aims, except for equity and patient-centeredness. We proposed two approaches to build composite scores accounting for equity via an adjustment procedure based on observed disparities. The single- and multi-aim approaches were compared through correlation, concordance of trauma centre categorisations, and hypothetical incentives. The differences in the approaches stemmed mainly from the weights allocated to the different aims. Results indicated the potential value of multi-aim quality assessment and provided insights about implementation challenges and opportunities. The methods are applicable to the preferred metrics; nevertheless, further research is needed in measuring patient-centeredness.
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.