ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2023
Development of a set of quality indicators in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan with a modified Delphi method.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsFew paediatric and perinatal quality indicators (QIs) have been developed in the Japanese setting, and the quality of care is not assured or validated. The aim of this study was to develop QIs in paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database and confirm the feasibility and applicability of the indicators using a single-site practice test.
methodsWe used a RAND-modified Delphi method that integrates evidence review with expert consensus development. QI candidates were generated from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) available in English or Japanese and existing QIs in nine selected paediatric or perinatal conditions. Consensus building was based on independent panel ratings. The performance of QIs was retrospectively assessed using data from an administrative database at the National Children's Hospital. Data between April 2018 and March 2019 were used, while data between April 2019 and March 2021 were also used for selected condition, considering the small number of patients. Each QI was calculated as follows: number of times the indicator was met/number of participants×100.
resultsFrom the literature review conducted between 2010 and 2020, 124 CPGs and 193 existing indicators were identified to generate QI candidates. Through the consensus-building process, 133 QI candidates were assessed and 79 QIs were accepted. The practice test revealed wide variations in the process-level performance of QIs in four categories: patient safety: median 43.9% (IQR 16.7%-85.6%), general paediatrics: median 98.8% (IQR 84.2%-100%), advanced paediatrics: median 94.4% (IQR 46.0%-100%) and advanced obstetrics: median 80.3% (IQR 59.6%-100%).
conclusionsWe established 79 QIs for paediatric and perinatal care in Japan using an administrative database that can be applied to hospitals nationwide. The practice test confirmed the measurability of the developed QIs. Benchmarking these QIs will be an attractive approach to improving the quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.