Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35722441›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2022

Examining the adaptability and validity of interRAI acute care quality indicators in a surgical context.

Timothy Wood, Mark Chatfield, Leonard Gray, Nancye Peel, Shannon Freeman, Melinda Martin-Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Timothy WoodSchool of Nursing, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9669-266X
Mark ChatfieldCentre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-6274
Leonard GrayCentre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Nancye PeelCentre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Shannon FreemanSchool of Nursing, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada.
Melinda Martin-KhanCentre for Health Services Research, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, the use of quality indicators in the surgical setting may be challenged by diverse patient needs, clinical complexity, and health trajectories. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the adaptability of existing quality indicators to a surgical context and propose new time points. Methods: A multi-method approach included an environmental scan of the literature, consultation with multinational experts, and analysis of surgical patient data. Quality indicators from the nurse-administered interRAI Acute Care instrument were examined within a surgical context using secondary data from a hospital in Brisbane, Australia (N = 1006 surgical cases). Results: A lack of relevancy of existing time points can preclude meaningful quality indicator measurement. Definitions of some quality indicators were adapted to ensure relevancy for the surgical population. As well, a surgical baseline (measured preoperative and post-injury) and a 48-h postoperative time point were added to the existing measurement timeline. Conclusion: Distinct measurement timelines were created for elective and non-elective surgical patients. The use of surgery-specific time points that can be embedded into an existing Acute Care measurement framework supports consistent quality indicator reporting. This study represents the first steps towards standardized quality reporting for health information systems across different care settings.

Indexed as

acute carecritical careQuality indicatorsquality of caresurgery

Identifiers

PMID35722441
PMCPMC9201359

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.