4.6 Article

Improved National Outcomes Achieved in a Cardiac Learning Health Collaborative Based on Early Performance Level

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 222, 期 -, 页码 186-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.03.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [8UL1TR000055]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Within the National Pediatric Cardiology Quality Improvement Collaborative (NPC-QIC), a learning health network developed to improve outcomes for patients with hypoplastic left heart syndrome and variants, we assessed which centers contributed to reductions in mortality and growth failure. Study design Centers within the NPC-QIC were divided into tertiles based on early performance for mortality and separately for growth failure. These groups were evaluated for improvement from the early to late time period and compared with the other groups in the late time period. Results Mortality was 3.8% for the high-performing, 7.6% for the medium-performing, and 14.4% for the low-performing groups in the early time period. Only the low-performing group had a significant change (P < .001) from the early to late period. In the late period, there was no difference in mortality between the high- (5.7%), medium- (7%), and low- (4.6%) performing centers (P = .5). Growth failure occurred in 13.9% for the high-performing, 21.9% for the medium-performing, and 32.8% for the low-performing groups in the early time period. Only the low-performing group had a significant change (P < .001) overtime. In the late period, there was no significant difference in growth failure between the high- (19.8%), medium- (21.5%), and low- (13.5%) performing groups (P = .054). Conclusions Improvements in the NPC-QIC mortality and growth measures are primarily driven by improvement in those performing the worst in these areas initially without compromising the success of high-performing centers. Focus for improvement may vary by center based on performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据