ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Identifying Children in Foster Care and Improving Foster Care Documentation in Primary Care.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Intersection of paediatric heart disease and foster care status: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Observational
- Foster Care Status as an Understudied Social Driver of Health Outcomes for Children Needing Cardiac Surgery.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Children and youth in foster care (CYFC) are a population with special healthcare needs, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has healthcare standards to care for this population, but implementation challenges include identifying clinic patients in foster care (FC). Documentation of FC status in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) can support the identification of CYFC to tailor care delivery. Therefore, we aimed to improve the percentage of CYFC with problem list (PL) documentation of FC status from 20% to 60% within 12 months. Methods: This study used a five-cycle plan-do-study-act quality improvement model in two co-located primary care teaching clinics. The primary outcome was the weekly percentage of patients with FC status on EHR PL. Ishikawa cause and effect analysis and resident survey identified barriers and informed interventions: education, patient list distribution, documentation training, email reminders, and clinic champion. We constructed statistical process control charts of the primary outcome to assess for improvement. Results: Mean weekly percentage of patients with FC status on PL improved from 19.8% to 60.2%. The most extensive improvements occurred after designating a clinic champion and providing email reminders with enhanced patient lists. The sustainability of PL documentation (mean = 71.7%) was demonstrated 3-4 years after the completion of plan-do-study-act cycle interventions. Conclusions: Educating providers, collaborating with child welfare to provide patient lists to providers, standardizing documentation, and designating clinic champions are promising methods of improving EHR documentation of FC status. Identifying and documenting FC status are important initial steps to optimizing care for this vulnerable population in primary care.
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.