Evaluation of emergency department performance:A systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of emergency department (ED) performance remains a difficult task due to the lack of consensus on performance measures that reflects high quality, efficiency, and sustainability. AIM: To describe, map, and critically evaluate which performance measures that the published literature regard as being most relevant in assessing overall ED performance. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of review articles reporting accentuated ED performance measures was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Study eligibility criteria includes: 1) the main purpose was to discuss, analyse, or promote performance measures best reflecting ED performance, 2) the article was a review article, and 3) the article reported macro-level performance measures, thus reflecting an overall departmental performance level. RESULTS: A number of articles addresses this study’s objective (n = 14 of 46 unique hits). Time intervals and patient-related measures were dominant in the identified performance measures in review articles from US, UK, Sweden and Canada. Length of stay (LOS), time between patient arrival to initial clinical assessment, and time between patient arrivals to admission were highlighted by the majority of articles. Concurrently, “patients left without being seen” (LWBS), unplanned re-attendance within a maximum of 72 hours, mortality/morbidity, and number of unintended incidents were the most highlighted performance measures that related directly to the patient. Performance measures related to employees were only stated in two of the 14 included articles. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 55 ED performance measures were identified. ED time intervals were the most recommended performance measures followed by patient centeredness and safety performance measures. ED employee related performance measures were rarely mentioned in the investigated literature. The study’s results allow for advancement towards improved performance measurement and standardised assessment across EDs

Targeting the epigenome: effects of epigenetic treatment strategies on genomic stability in healthy human cells

Epigenetic treatment concepts have long been ascribed as being tumour-selective. Over the last decade, it has become evident that epigenetic mechanisms are essential for a wide range of intracellular functions in healthy cells as well. Evaluation of possible side-effects and their underlying mechanisms in healthy human cells is necessary in order to improve not only patient safety, but also to support future drug development. Since epigenetic regulation directly interacts with genomic and chromosomal packaging density, increasing genomic instability may be a result subsequent to drug-induced epigenetic modifications. This review highlights past and current research efforts on the influence of epigenetic modification on genomic stability in healthy human cells

Randomized trials involving surgery did not routinely report considerations of learning and clustering effects

Objectives To establish current practice of the management of learning and clustering effects, by treating center and surgeon, in the design and analysis of randomized surgical trials. Study Design and Setting The need for more surgical randomized trials is well recognized, and in recent years conduct has grown. Rigorous design, conduct, and analyses of such studies is important. Two methodological challenges are clustering effects, by center or surgeon, and surgical learning on trial outcomes. Sixteen leading journals were searched for randomized trials published within a two-year period. Data were extracted on considerations for learning and clustering effects. Results A total of 247 eligible studies were identified. Trials accounted for learning with 2% using an expertise-based design and 39% accounting for expertise by predefining surgeon credentials. One study analyzed learning. Clustering, by site and surgeon, was commonly managed by stratifying randomization, although one-third of center and 40% of surgeon stratified trials did not also adjust analysis. Conclusion Considerations for surgical learning and clustering effects are often unclear. Methods are varied and demonstrate poor adherence to established reporting guidelines. It is recommended that researchers consider these issues on a trial-by-trial basis, and report methods or justify where not needed to inform interpretation of results.</p

Randomised trials involving surgery did not routinely report considerations of learning and clustering effects

Objectives To establish current practice of the management of learning and clustering effects, by treating center and surgeon, in the design and analysis of randomized surgical trials. Study Design and Setting The need for more surgical randomized trials is well recognized, and in recent years conduct has grown. Rigorous design, conduct, and analyses of such studies is important. Two methodological challenges are clustering effects, by center or surgeon, and surgical learning on trial outcomes. Sixteen leading journals were searched for randomized trials published within a two-year period. Data were extracted on considerations for learning and clustering effects. Results A total of 247 eligible studies were identified. Trials accounted for learning with 2% using an expertise-based design and 39% accounting for expertise by predefining surgeon credentials. One study analyzed learning. Clustering, by site and surgeon, was commonly managed by stratifying randomization, although one-third of center and 40% of surgeon stratified trials did not also adjust analysis. Conclusion Considerations for surgical learning and clustering effects are often unclear. Methods are varied and demonstrate poor adherence to established reporting guidelines. It is recommended that researchers consider these issues on a trial-by-trial basis, and report methods or justify where not needed to inform interpretation of results.</p

Randomized trials involving surgery did not routinely report considerations of learning and clustering effects

Objective To establish current practice of the management of learning and clustering effects, by treating center and surgeon, in the design and analysis of randomized surgical trials. Study design and setting The need for more surgical randomized trials is well recognized, and in recent years conduct has grown. Rigorous design, conduct, and analyses of such studies is important. Two methodological challenges are clustering effects, by center or surgeon, and surgical learning on trial outcomes. Sixteen leading journals were searched for randomized trials published within a two-year period. Data were extracted on considerations for learning and clustering effects. Results A total of 247 eligible studies were identified. Trials accounted for learning with 2% using an expertise-based design and 39% accounting for expertise by predefining surgeon credentials. One study analyzed learning. Clustering, by site and surgeon, was commonly managed by stratifying randomization, although one-third of center and 40% of surgeon stratified trials did not also adjust analysis. Conclusion Considerations for surgical learning and clustering effects are often unclear. Methods are varied and demonstrate poor adherence to established reporting guidelines. It is recommended that researchers consider these issues on a trial-by-trial basis, and report methods or justify where not needed to inform interpretation of results.</p