Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39806720›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Conceptualising Centres of Clinical Excellence: A Scoping Review.

Thoshenthri Kandasamy, Rachel C Stockley, Jeroen M Hendriks, Natalie Ann Fini, Lemma N Bulto, Elizabeth A Lynch

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Thoshenthri KandasamyCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia kand0060@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4431-7045
Rachel C StockleySchool of Nursing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4441-6860
Jeroen M HendriksCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Natalie Ann FiniDepartment of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Health Sciences, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5474-6404
Lemma N BultoCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Elizabeth A LynchCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Science, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCentres of clinical excellence (CoCE) are healthcare facilities that provide excellent healthcare. However, despite their increasing prevalence, it is unclear how CoCE are identified and monitored. This paper explores how CoCE has been described in the literature, including its defining characteristics and selection and monitoring processes.

designWe conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework, enhanced by Levac DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search using MEDLINE Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus was conducted to identify relevant literature from January 2010 to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included published studies and grey literature that described how a CoCE was defined, established, monitored or evaluated. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed the title and abstract screening, reviewed the full texts and extracted data.

results50 records describing 45 initiatives were included. More than half were published in the USA (n=25, 56%). All but one initiative focused on one clinical condition/population, most commonly cardiovascular disease (n=8, 17%), spinal surgeries (n=4, 9%) and pituitary tumours (n=4, 9%). Most initiatives (n=30, 67%) described a structured process to establish CoCE. The definitions of CoCE were not uniform. Common defining features included the volume of patients treated, medical expertise, a highly skilled multidisciplinary team, high-quality care and excellent patient outcomes. Identification as a CoCE varied from self-identification with no explicit criteria to application and assessment by an approval panel.

conclusionDespite a growing prevalence of CoCE, there are inconsistencies in how CoCE are established, identified, monitored and evaluated. Common (but not uniform) features of CoCE are highly skilled staff, high-quality care delivery and optimal patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesQuality of Health CareHumansInternational health servicesOrganisation of health servicesProtocols & guidelinesQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID39806720
PMCPMC11667474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.