ArticleHuman resources for health2024
Effects of intensive care unit quality assessment on changes in medical staff in medical institutions and in-hospital mortality.
Article in Human resources for health, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The functional landscape of critical care: a nationwide study of volume, capability, and institutional variation in South Korea.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- The Quality Changes in Intensive Care Units in South Korea since the Initiation of Intensive Care Unit Quality Assessments.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality assessments are being introduced in many countries to improve the quality of care and maintain acceptable quality levels. In South Korea, various quality assessments are being conducted to improve the quality of care, but there is insufficient evidence on intensive care units (ICUs). This study aims to evaluate the impact of ICU quality assessments on the structural indicators in medical institutions and the resulting in-hospital mortality of patients.
methodsThis study used data collected in the 2nd and 3rd ICU quality assessments in 2017 and 2019. A total of 72,879 patients admitted to ICUs were included during this period, with 265 institutions that received both assessments. As for structural indicators, changes in medical personnel and equipment were assessed, and in-hospital deaths were evaluated as patient outcomes. To evaluate the association between medical staff and in-hospital mortality, a generalized estimating equation model was performed considering both hospital and patient variables.
resultsCompared to the second quality evaluation, the number of intensivist physicians and experienced nurses increased in the third quality evaluation; however, there was still a gap in the workforce depending on the type of medical institution. Among all ICU patients admitted during the evaluation period, 12.0% of patients died in the hospital. In-hospital mortality decreased at the 3rd assessment, and hospitals employing intensivist physicians were associated with reduced in-hospital deaths. In addition, an increase in the number of experienced nurses was associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality, while an increase in the nurse-to-bed ratio increased mortality.
conclusionsICU quality assessments improved overall structural indicators, but the gap between medical institutions has not improved and interventions are required to bridge this gap. In addition, it is important to maintain skilled medical personnel to bring about better results for patients, and various efforts should be considered. This requires continuous monitoring and further research on long-term effects.
Indexed as
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.