Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253016›Full record

ReviewBMJ open quality2022

Exploring variation in quality of care and clinical outcomes between neonatal units: a novel use for the UK National Neonatal Audit Programme (NNAP).

Abdul-Qader Tahir Ismail, Elaine M Boyle, Sam Oddie, Thillagavathie Pillay

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open quality, 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. Observational
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

4 authors.

Abdul-Qader Tahir IsmailDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK aqt.ismail@bnc.oxon.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4125-8684
Elaine M BoyleDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sam OddieBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Thillagavathie PillayDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neonatology is a relatively new specialty, in which much of the practice remains non-evidence based. Variation in the quality of care delivered is recognised but measuring this is challenging. One possible indicator of this is variation in practice. For more than a decade, the National Neonatal Audit Project (NNAP) has described variation in practice between UK neonatal units in relation to its annually reviewed audit measures. These are based on evidence based national standards or developed by a consensus method and have become de facto measures defining good quality of neonatal healthcare within the UK. In this article we explore the practicality of using the NNAP to look for associations between quality of care and outcomes. This would not be to validate the measures but could help towards a better understanding of the reasons underlying recognised variation in outcomes, even between neonatal units of the same designation.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, NeonatalResearch DesignConsensusHumansInfant, NewbornQuality of Health CareUnited KingdomHealthcare quality improvementQuality improvement methodologiesQuality measurement

Identifiers

PMID36253016
PMCPMC9577915

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.