ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Indicator Implementation in Japanese Public Hospitals: A Comparative Study of the 2016 and 2024 Trends After the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This study investigates the adoption and implementation of clinical indicators in Japanese public hospitals, focusing on changes since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and utilizing Donabedian's triadic model (structure, process, outcome). Methods A nationwide postal survey was conducted targeting 848 municipal hospitals with ≥20 beds in Japan. The survey explored clinical indicator usage, categorized by Donabedian's framework. Hospitals were classified based on size to evaluate disparities in indicator adoption. Data were analyzed to compare findings from the 2024 survey with a similar 2016 survey. Questionnaires were mailed at the end of September 2024. Survey participants were provided with an extended deadline of December 16, 2024, which was one month after the original deadline. Results As of December 17, 2024, the response rate was 15.7% (133 hospitals), with 130 valid responses. Clinical indicator adoption increased from 42.4% (97) (2016) to 58.5% (76) (2024). Large hospitals were more likely to implement clinical indicators (59 [88.1%]) than small and medium hospitals (17 [27.0%]). Frequently used indicators included average hospitalization duration, bed utilization rates, and clinical pathway coverage. Each structural indicator remained underutilized, with <15% of hospitals reporting their use. Conclusion The findings highlight progress in clinical indicator adoption, particularly in large hospitals. However, significant disparities persist between hospital sizes. As the pandemic subsides, it remains essential to continue improving hospital management practices, including clinical indicator use, in preparation for future infectious disease outbreaks. The three-way model classification for medical evaluation is renowned, but the percentage use of structural indicators has not exceeded 15%, and the implementation status is not as advanced as that of process and outcome indicators. Our results are significant as they verify the explanatory power of the three-way model for medical care based on Japanese data.
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.