MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385658263 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-015390

Economic analysis of surgical outcome monitoring using control charts: the SHEWHART cluster randomised trial

2023· article· en· W4385658263 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRégion NormandieCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-JustineHospices Civils de LyonBrigham and Women's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineControl chartCluster randomised controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Outcome (game theory)Randomized controlled trialOperations managementMedical emergencyEmergency medicineSurgeryComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Surgical complications represent a considerable proportion of hospital expenses. Therefore, interventions that improve surgical outcomes could reduce healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effects of implementing surgical outcome monitoring using control charts to reduce hospital bed-days within 30 days following surgery, and hospital costs reimbursed for this care by the insurer. DESIGN: National, parallel, cluster-randomised SHEWHART trial using a difference-in-difference approach. SETTING: 40 surgical departments from distinct hospitals across France. PARTICIPANTS: 155 362 patients over the age of 18 years, who underwent hernia repair, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, bariatric, colorectal, hepatopancreatic or oesophageal and gastric surgery were included in analyses. INTERVENTION: After the baseline assessment period (2014-2015), hospitals were randomly allocated to the intervention or control groups. In 2017-2018, the 20 hospitals assigned to the intervention were provided quarterly with control charts for monitoring their surgical outcomes (inpatient death, intensive care stay, reoperation and severe complications). At each site, pairs, consisting of one surgeon and a collaborator (surgeon, anaesthesiologist or nurse), were trained to conduct control chart team meetings, display posters in operating rooms, maintain logbooks and design improvement plans. MAIN OUTCOMES: Number of hospital bed-days per patient within 30 days following surgery, including the index stay and any acute care readmissions related to the occurrence of major adverse events, and hospital costs reimbursed for this care per patient by the insurer. RESULTS: Postintervention, hospital bed-days per patient within 30 days following surgery decreased at an adjusted ratio of rate ratio (RRR) of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98; p<0.001), corresponding to a 3.3% reduction (95% CI 2.1% to 4.6%) for intervention hospitals versus control hospitals. Hospital costs reimbursed for this care per patient by the insurer significantly decreased at an adjusted ratio of cost ratio (RCR) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; p=0.01), corresponding to a 1.3% decrease (95% CI 0.0% to 2.6%). The consumption of a total of 8910 hospital bed-days (95% CI 5611 to 12 634 bed-days) and €2 615 524 (95% CI €32 366 to €5 405 528) was avoided in the intervention hospitals postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: Using control charts paired with indicator feedback to surgical teams was associated with significant reductions in hospital bed-days within 30 days following surgery, and hospital costs reimbursed for this care by the insurer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02569450.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.308
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it