PubMed · 10318172
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J P Newhouse, P Lindsey. 1988. Do second opinion programs improve outcomes?. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(88)90029-x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the effect on adverse events of a telephone follow-up quality improvement program. METHODS: This was a before-and-after intervention comparison based on prospectively collected data in a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED) (82,000 visits per year). The first half (April 15 to July 31, 2001) served as control, and the second half (August 1 to November 15, 2001) served as intervention with feedback to physicians on telephone follow-up outcomes of discharged patients and resident training about the uncertain presentations of serious diseases and the need to use additional evaluation on selected patients (observation unit, hospital admission). Telephone follow-up of the high-risk patients and retrospective review of 3-day return visits were used to quantify outcome measures: return visits to EDs and clinically significant adverse events (return visits with serious misdiagnoses or an erroneous management plan). The differences in proportions of outcomes were measured with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: High-risk patients were enrolled: 566 (13.7%) of 4,139 discharged patients in the before-intervention period and 397 (11.3%) of 3,507 in the after-intervention period. The quality improvement initiative decreased return visits on enrolled patients from 10.1% (57/566) to 4.9% (19/397) (5.2% difference with 95% CI 1.8% to 8.8%) and decreased clinically significant adverse events from 4.1% (23/566) to 1.5% (6/397) (2.6% difference with 95% CI 0.3% to 4.8%). For all ED discharged patients, clinically significant adverse events decreased from 0.9% (39/4,139) to 0.4% (15/3,507) (0.5% difference with 95% CI 0.1% to 0.9%). During the study, the observation rate increased 4.3% (95% CI 2.8% to 5.7%), and the admission rate increased 3.4% (95% CI 2.1% to 4.8%). CONCLUSION: A quality improvement program with feedback to physicians of telephone follow-up and resident education can decrease clinically significant adverse events in ED discharged patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of inter-institutional surgical pathology review of thyroid cancer on patients' treatment and prognosis. METHODS: All cases referred to the Institute of Pathology at Leeds for thyroid pathology review between January 2001 and March 2003 were included. The referring pathologists reports were compared to those produced in the MDT meeting by the expert pathologist. Whenever there was disagreement a third expert opinion was sought who was blinded for both diagnoses. Effects on management and prognosis were evaluated if there was disagreement. RESULTS: Of the 66 patients reviewed, 12 (18%) had a different pathological diagnosis (kappa=0.33). Two had their diagnosis changed from malignant to benign and a further two from benign to malignant. Eight patients had their prognosis downgraded and four upgraded after histopathological review. Five patients had their management affected by the new pathological diagnosis. CONCLUSION: A second opinion of surgical pathology for thyroid tumours can result in major therapeutic and prognostic modifications. All cases of suspected thyroid cancers should be reviewed in a multidisciplinary meeting supported by pathologist with experience in thyroid pathology.