Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37560366›Full record

ArticleJMA journal2023

Transversal Survey of Emergency Medicine Policy and Quality Metrics in Japan's Regional Health Care Plans.

Atsuyoshi Iida, Shinya Saito, Jun Hamada, Shunsuke Nakamura, Tsuyoshi Nojima, Hiromichi Naito, Takeshi Mikane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMA journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Atsuyoshi IidaDepartment of Emergency, Critical Care, and Disaster Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Shinya SaitoGraduate School of Health Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Jun HamadaDepartment of Health and Welfare Services Management, Kawasaki University of Medical Welfare, Kurashiki, Japan.
Shunsuke NakamuraDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Okayama Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Tsuyoshi NojimaDepartment of Emergency, Critical Care, and Disaster Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Hiromichi NaitoDepartment of Emergency, Critical Care, and Disaster Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.
Takeshi MikaneDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Okayama Hospital, Okayama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: It is essential to establish appropriate medical quality metrics and make improvements to safely and efficiently deliver optimum emergency medical services. The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) recommends prefectures to establish numerical quality metrics in their regional healthcare plans (RHCP). The 7th RHCP was issued by the MHLW in 2017 along with a notice of planning in covering the six-year period from 2018 to 2023. In this descriptive study, the emergency medicine policies in the 7th RHCP of each prefecture were analyzed from a quality improvement perspective. Method: The authors examined the chapters on emergency medicine in the RHCPs of 47 prefectural governments for the overall structure, cost-benefits, and connection to community-based integrated care systems. The type and number of clinical measures listed as numerical metrics and their classification methods were emphasized. Result: Regarding the overall plan structure, 40 prefectural governments began their description with an analysis of current surroundings. In total, 24 prefectural governments mentioned community-based integrated care systems but none mentioned cost-benefit analysis. Altogether, only 43 of 47 prefectural governments (91%) indicated numerical metrics. The maximum number of numerical targets for quality measures by prefecture was 19, the minimum was 0, and the median was 4 (IQR: 3-6.5); there were 220 metrics in total, with 82 structural, 96 process, and 42 outcome measures. Additionally, 13 prefectures (28%) classified quality measures according to the MHLW's guidance, 6 (13%) used their own classification manner, while the others did not classify their measures. Conclusions: There were significant differences in emergency medicine policies and quality metrics among the prefectural governments. Further research is needed to develop and establish more comprehensive and appropriate metrics based on a common methodology to improve the quality of emergency medicine.

Indexed as

emergency medicineindicatormeasurequality assurancequality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37560366
PMCPMC10407299

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.