scholarly journals MULTICENTER VALIDATION OF TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE SCORE AS A QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL IN CONGENITAL CARDIAC SURGERY

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (10) ◽  
pp. A483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meena Nathan ◽  
Hua Liu ◽  
Steven Colan ◽  
Lazaros Kochilas ◽  
Geetha Raghuveer ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Meena Nathan ◽  
John Karamichalis ◽  
Steven Colan ◽  
Hua Liu ◽  
John E Mayer ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND : In previous work from our institution, individual practitioner technical performance of surgical procedures has been shown to be an important contributor to outcome and resource utilization in selected congenital cardiac operations. We have developed a Technical Scoring System for evaluation of majority of congenital cardiac procedures and wish to validate its efficacy as a self assessment tool for quality improvement. METHODS : All patients who were discharged between Jan 1 2011 and Dec 31, 2011 were included in this study. Based on discharge echocardiograms, a technical performance score was assigned using previously designed criteria. Case complexity was determined by RACHS-I category, postoperative adverse events and mortality were prospectively monitored. Outcomes were analyzed by non parametric methods. RESULTS : There were a total of 842 discharges encompassing all ages from neonates to adults. 560 (67%) were in RACHS-1 categories 1 to 3 (low risk) and 130 (15%) were in RACHS-1 categories 4 to 6 (high risk) and 152 (18%) could not be categorized. Technical performance scores were as follows: 436 (52%) class 1-optimal, 242(29%) class 2-adequate, 96 (115) class 3-inadequate, and 68(8%) could not classified. Occurrence of major adverse events, mortality and length of stay were all significantly higher in class 3. CONCLUSION : Preliminary data validates the usefulness of the technical scoring system as a quality assessment tool.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (14) ◽  
pp. 2210-2212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Bushmanova ◽  
Dmitry Antipov ◽  
Alla Lapidus ◽  
Vladimir Suvorov ◽  
Andrey D. Prjibelski

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 872-885
Author(s):  
Steffen H. Symoens ◽  
Syam Ukkandath Aravindakshan ◽  
Florence H. Vermeire ◽  
Kevin De Ras ◽  
Marko R. Djokic ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (687) ◽  
pp. e665-e674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedict Hayhoe ◽  
Jose Acuyo Cespedes ◽  
Kimberley Foley ◽  
Azeem Majeed ◽  
Judith Ruzangi ◽  
...  

BackgroundEvidence suggests that pharmacists integrated into primary care can improve patient outcomes and satisfaction, but their impact on healthcare systems is unclear.AimTo identify the key impacts of pharmacists’ integration into primary care on health system indicators, such as healthcare utilisation and costs.Design and settingA systematic review of literature.MethodEmbase, MEDLINE, Scopus, the Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were examined, along with reference lists of relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published up until June 2018, which considered health system outcomes of the integration of pharmacists into primary care, were included. The Cochrane risk of bias quality assessment tool was used to assess risk of bias for RCTs; the National Institute of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool was used for observational studies. Data were extracted from published reports and findings synthesised.ResultsSearches identified 3058 studies, of which 28 met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies were of fair quality. Pharmacists in primary care resulted in reduced use of GP appointments and reduced emergency department (ED) attendance, but increased overall primary care use. There was no impact on hospitalisations, but some evidence of savings in overall health system and medication costs.ConclusionIntegrating pharmacists into primary care may reduce GP workload and ED attendance. However, further higher quality studies are needed, including research to clarify the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and the long-term impact on health system outcomes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 691-697
Author(s):  
Daisy B Atwell ◽  
Clemency Booth ◽  
Dinesh D Vignarajah ◽  
Marcel Knesl ◽  
Nicole Buddle ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document