Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36962543›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2022

Improving in-patient neonatal data quality as a pre-requisite for monitoring and improving quality of care at scale: A multisite retrospective cohort study in Kenya.

Timothy Tuti, Jalemba Aluvaala, Daisy Chelangat, George Mbevi, John Wainaina, Livingstone Mumelo, Kefa Wairoto, Dolphine Mochache, Grace Irimu, Michuki Maina and 2 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Timothy TutiKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7915-3004
Jalemba AluvaalaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Daisy ChelangatKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
George MbeviKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
John WainainaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5593-1211
Livingstone MumeloKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3909-5724
Kefa WairotoKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Dolphine MochacheKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Grace IrimuKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Michuki MainaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Clinical Information Network Group
Mike EnglishKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KEUniversity of Nairobi · KE

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to (1)explore the quality of clinical data generated from hospitals providing in-patient neonatal care participating in a clinical information network (CIN) and whether data improved over time, and if data are adequate, (2)characterise accuracy of prescribing for basic treatments provided to neonatal in-patients over time. This was a retrospective cohort study involving neonates ≤28 days admitted between January 2018 and December 2021 in 20 government hospitals with an interquartile range of annual neonatal inpatient admissions between 550 and 1640 in Kenya. These hospitals participated in routine audit and feedback processes on quality of documentation and care over the study period. The study's outcomes were the number of patients as a proportion of all eligible patients over time with (1)complete domain-specific documentation scores, and (2)accurate domain-specific treatment prescription scores at admission, reported as incidence rate ratios. 80,060 neonatal admissions were eligible for inclusion. Upon joining CIN, documentation scores in the monitoring, other physical examination and bedside testing, discharge information, and maternal history domains demonstrated a statistically significant month-to-month relative improvement in number of patients with complete documentation of 7.6%, 2.9%, 2.4%, and 2.0% respectively. There was also statistically significant month-to-month improvement in prescribing accuracy after joining the CIN of 2.8% and 1.4% for feeds and fluids but not for Antibiotic prescriptions. Findings suggest that much of the variation observed is due to hospital-level factors. It is possible to introduce tools that capture important clinical data at least 80% of the time in routine African hospital settings but analyses of such data will need to account for missingness using appropriate statistical techniques. These data allow exploration of trends in performance and could support better impact evaluation, exploration of links between health system inputs and outcomes and scrutiny of variation in quality and outcomes of hospital care.

Identifiers

PMID36962543
PMCPMC10021237
OpenAlexW4306901656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read221
identifiers read12
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.