Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9776949›Full record

ReviewHealth services research1998

Assessing the quality of healthcare provided to children.

R Mangione-Smith, E A McGlynn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health services research, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pediatric intensive care outcomes: development of new morbidities during pediatric critical care.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2014
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Changing physician behaviour.Archives of disease in childhood · 2001
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors.

R Mangione-SmithUCLA Department of Pediatrics 90095-1752, USA.
E A McGlynn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo present a conceptual framework for evaluating quality of care for children and adolescents, summarize the key issues related to developing measures to assess pediatric quality of care, examine some existing measures, and present evidence about their current level of performance. PRINCIPAL

findingsAssessing the quality of care for children poses many challenges not encountered when making these measurements in the adult population. Children and adolescents (from this point forward referred to collectively as children unless differentiation is necessary) differ from adults in two clinically important ways (Jameson and Wehr 1993): (1) their normal developmental trajectory is characterized by change, and (2) they have differential morbidity. These factors contribute to the limitations encountered when developing measures to assess the quality of care for children. The movement of a child through the various stages of development makes it difficult to establish what constitutes a "normal" outcome and by extension what constitutes a poor outcome. Additionally, salient developmental outcomes that result from poor quality of care may not be observed for several years. This implies that poor outcomes may be observed when the child is receiving care from a delivery system other than the one that provided the low-quality care. Attributing the suboptimal outcome to the new delivery system would be inappropriate. Differential morbidity refers to the fact that the type, prevalence, and severity of illness experienced by children is measurably different from that observed in adults. Most children experience numerous self-limited illness of mild severity. A minority of children suffer from markedly more severe diseases. Thus, condition-specific measures in children are problematic to implement for routine assessments because of the extremely low incidence and prevalence of most severe pediatric diseases (Halfon 1996). However, children with these conditions are potentially the segment of the pediatric population that can be most affected by variations in the quality of care. Improving the care provided to these children is likely to have the largest impact on quality of life and longevity. The low prevalence of most severe pediatric diseases also makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of new treatment modalities; multi-center trials or long enrollment periods are usually required to obtain a large enough patient sample to conduct the necessary randomized controlled trials or cohort studies. Another challenge encountered when measuring quality of care for children is that, in most cases, they depend on adults to both obtain care and to report on the outcomes of that care. Parents and their children may have different perceptions of what defines health or have different levels of satisfaction with the care they receive. Children, particularly those with special needs, also depend on a broad range of services including the medical system, community intervention programs, social programs, and school-based services. Dependency on these various services adds to the difficulty of measuring and appropriately attributing health outcomes observed in children to a particular service delivery entity. Adolescents also depend on adults for access to some of their care; however, they have special needs related to confidentiality and parent-child information sharing. Adolescents commonly seek care at facilities, such as school-based clinics, that allow them to obtain confidential care. These facilities usually provide out-of-health plan care for these children, which raises special issues related to information availability for quality assessments and for assessing utilization patterns in this population. If the source of poor health outcomes is not known, quality improvement is not possible. The many challenges faced when constructing pediatric (this term will be used to refer to both children and adolescents) quality of care measures have resulted in few of these instruments being developed specifically for children. Most of the measures developed to date have either a very limited pediatric component or still require the process or outcome validation step. Although several practice guidelines and indicators of quality have been constructed, a conceptual framework to guide the development of such tools for quality assessment in the pediatric population is lacking.

conclusionsPediatric health services researchers and the organizations that fund this work need to focus on developing a set of quality assessment tools that will address several challenging issues. Working within the context of the conceptual framework presented, we draw several conclusions related to issues that should be considered in developing quality of care measures for children.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareAdolescentAdultChildChild DevelopmentChild Health ServicesEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMorbidityPrevalenceQuality Assurance, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID9776949
PMCPMC1070304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.