ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
A comparative study of key quality performance indicators in anesthesia and surgery in operation theatre at a tertiary care hospital in Rishikesh.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: A Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is a critical metric measuring organizational success or specific activities, reflecting the periodic achievement of operational goals aligned with strategic objectives. Material and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of key quality performance indicators, (CQI-NABH) concerning anesthesia and surgical services was conducted at a tertiary care hospital after taking institutional ethical clearance (AIIMS/IEC/21/150). It was as per COP 13, COP 14, and COP 15 standards of NABH 4 Results: Out of 8574 patients operated during the study, 6705 were in the four months before the pandemic, and 1869 were operated during the COVID-19 scenario. In the pre-COVID era, many of the cases were performed on an elective basis (71.23%), and emergencies constituted 16.9% of the total number of cases. In the COVID era, most of the cases were emergencies (45.4%) and semi-emergencies (40.25%), and elective cases were only 14.05% of the total cases performed. The percentage of modification of anaesthesia plans ranged from 0-3.34%. Adverse anaesthesia events were observed in 0-2.1%, primarily related to cardiovascular, respiratory, and airway issues. No anaesthesia-related mortality was reported. Prophylactic antibiotic administration within one hour of surgery ranged from 88-100%. Conclusions: Monitoring and evaluating healthcare performance, specifically through KPIs, is vital for optimizing care and resource utilization. These indicators provide an overview of hospital service efficiency, aiding in key areas such as patient treatment, satisfaction, healthcare quality improvement, cost reduction, and optimal resource utilization. Addressing identified issues ensures effective and sustainable quality improvement in anaesthesia services, emphasizing ongoing monitoring as a foundation for hospital quality assurance.
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.