ArticleSingapore medical journal2026
Moving from specialist-led to generalist-led hospital care: propensity-matched analyses of clinical outcomes and survey of patient care experiences.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn this study, we aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received care under a new generalist-led hospital care model - the Integrated General Hospital (IGH) - with those receiving care under the usual specialist-led hospital model, and to examine patients' care experiences of the IGH model.
methodsA retrospective propensity-matched analysis comparing attendees of IGH (n = 2,127) and usual care attendees at a different hospital (n = 2,127) was conducted between 1 January 2019 and 31 August 2019. Clinical outcomes included length of stay, 30-day readmission, inpatient mortality and mortality within 30 days of discharge. In addition, a patient survey on IGH care experiences (n = 270) was conducted between 7 October 2019 and 12 April 2021. A two-sample t-test or chi-square test was used to compare the matched samples. For time-to-event variables, a Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsAfter propensity-matching, statistically significant differences were found between the IGH and usual care groups for length of stay (P = 0.003), inpatient mortality (P = 0.007) and mortality within 30 days of discharge (P = 0.014), but not for 30 day readmission (P = 0.456). The hazard ratio for 30-day readmission was 0.94 (P = 0.46) and for mortality within 30 days of discharge was 0.51 (P = 0.01). Survey responses on IGH care found the care experiences were generally positive, particularly in terms of provider-patient communication and perceived staff teamwork.
conclusionInitial analysis of the IGH model was associated with better clinical outcomes in some respects compared with the usual care model. Patient care experiences of IGH were also favourable. An ongoing prospective study will explore the longer-term clinical impact of the IGH care model, including the effect on postdischarge care and care continuity.
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.