1 / 41

Overview of clinical outcomes 2010-2011

Explore the extensive and concerning variations in clinical outcomes data at Women’s & Children’s Hospital based on the 2010-2011 records. This study highlights significant discrepancies, potential data quality issues, and patterns in patient care. Diving deep into the outcomes, this report raises questions about best practices and data accuracy.

shing
Download Presentation

Overview of clinical outcomes 2010-2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview of clinical outcomes 2010-2011 Peter Baghurst Public Health Research Unit Women’s and Children’s Hospital Women’s and Children’s Health Network North Adelaide, South Australia

  2. (Almost two-fold variation)

  3. (This hospital having a problem transiting to a new database)

  4. (Three-fold variation!)

  5. (satisfying that most of these are born in level 6 hospitals)

  6. (large hospital serving very wide catchment)

  7. (suggests weight more likely to be recorded If it looks as if it might be a problem) (6 – 8 fold variation)

  8. (high-risk pregnancies seem to be making it to a hospital with a NICU)

  9. This hospital has some adherents to the view that best outcomes are achieved at around 39 weeks (greater than 2-fold variation)

  10. Huge variation! We are worried about the data quality for this one.

  11. Reproducible every year!

  12. (checked – but clearly a high-intervention hospital)

  13. Consistent with high use of CS

  14. Slightly anxious about this one

  15. Not far apart geo- graphically either!

  16. (high variability)

  17. (consistent across hospitals)

  18. (huge variation)

  19. May need checking

  20. (4-fold variation, but more in level 6 hospitals)

  21. (need double funnel)

  22. (has fewer sections overall)

  23. (5 – 6 fold variation)

  24. (over 5-fold variation)

  25. Controversial indicator! (Mounting evidence of under-reporting – especially of partial third degree tears )

  26. (same hospitals high for selected primips)

  27. (reasonably consistent across members)

  28. (small numbers, excess of 4?)

More Related