FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2378133064> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2378133064 endingPage "i2750" @default.
• W2378133064 startingPage "i2750" @default.
• W2378133064 abstract "Those who yearn for a world in which policies are based on a systematic and dispassionate assessment of the evidence can find little encouragement in the ongoing debate about the safety of hospitals at weekends. Almost nothing is clear in this tangled tale. It began when the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, claimed on the BBC Today programme that there were 6000 avoidable deaths each year and a lack of weekend cover by consultants was a key factor.1 Yet the evidence to support this claim was elusive. Sometimes the Department of Health pointed to a 2012 paper on hospital mortality.2 Other times, and contrary to the government’s code of practice on use of statistics, they mentioned a (then) yet to be published paper in The BMJ.3 The problem was that, while both did identify an increase in deaths among those admitted at weekends, neither attributed it to a shortage of medical staff. Both identified numerous possible explanations, including various data artefacts. Indeed, the second paper stated explicitly that “to assume that [these deaths] are avoidable would be rash and misleading.”3Yet, notwithstanding this considerable uncertainty, the government sought major changes in hospital staffing, somehow shifting its attention away from consultants to doctors in training. In an unprecedented move, the editor of this journal wrote to the health secretary asking him to desist from further misleading claims based on The BMJ paper by Freemantle and colleagues.3 The subsequent government decision to impose a new contract was mired in confusion.4The only good thing to have come out of this process is that it has stimulated a series of studies that seek to resolve the uncertainties identified by the authors of the initial papers and in accompanying commentaries.5 In a linked paper, Li and Rothwell (doi:10.1136/bmj.i2648) used data from a population based stroke register to evaluate the quality of administrative data on patients admitted to hospital with stroke.6 The choice of stroke is appropriate because it is a condition for which specialist management in the acute stage can considerably improve survival. Although few will be surprised, the authors identify substantial problems with the data. Only three quarters of new strokes could be identified from the administrative data, and more than a third of episodes were incorrectly coded as admissions for acute stroke. Crucially, many people with apparent new strokes admitted during the week were actually patients undergoing investigations or procedures related to earlier strokes; these patients were much less likely to die. An analysis limited to patients with genuine new strokes found no weekend effect. This study provides support for two of the alternative explanations for the weekend effect, data artefact and case mix.Three other recent studies have filled other gaps. Aldridge and colleagues examined the work of consultants at weekends.7 Again, using crude data, they found a increase in mortality at the weekend but, while noting several limitations such as a low response rate among consultants, were unable to show any association between the intensity of consultant input to patient care and mortality.Bray and colleagues also studied stroke outcomes using a clinical database that overcame many limitations of administrative data.8 Using sophisticated adjustment for case mix, they found no weekend increase in mortality but did find complex variation in the use of investigations and treatment, with patients admitted on weekday nights faring worst.Finally, Meacock and colleagues examined the important question of whether the threshold for admitting patients is higher at weekends, finding that it is.9 As suspected, patients getting over this higher weekend threshold are sicker and more likely to die. Once again, the weekend effect disappears after appropriate adjustment.Collectively, these studies answer some of the outstanding questions. They show that at least part of the weekend effect is data artefact and, consistent with evidence that was available when the health secretary made his initial statement, any remaining association between weekend admission and mortality does not seem to be due to hospital medical staffing.10 However, they also raise other questions. The reported weaknesses of administrative data cast further doubt on the use of measures such as hospital standardised mortality rates.11 And to the extent that a weekend effect does exist, what is the appropriate response? The available evidence points to a need for improvements in availability of primary care and possibly nurse staffing, but much more research is needed.12The most interesting question, however, is how, in the face of what we now know, the Department of Health can still insist that doctors in training must accept a new contract to address any weekend effect? One possibility is that the department has an ulterior motive, viewing the failure of contract negotiations as a means to achieve local pay bargaining. Another is that ministers are simply displaying a range of cognitive biases that collectively prevent any admission of error or the learning and change of direction that should follow. Arguably, this is the next question that researchers might turn to, taking their cue from the World Bank, which has set the standard for learning organisations to aspire to.13 However, such research is unlikely to be undertaken any time soon." @default.
• W2378133064 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2378133064 creator A5027320968 @default.
• W2378133064 date "2016-05-16" @default.
• W2378133064 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2378133064 title "The weekend effect: now you see it, now you don’t" @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2120060955 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2142032616 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2157700022 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2158864198 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2170819228 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2194533919 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2345562130 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2363586703 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2376630707 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2381916258 @default.
• W2378133064 cites W2403292223 @default.
• W2378133064 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2750" @default.
• W2378133064 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4868364" @default.
• W2378133064 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27185763" @default.
• W2378133064 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2378133064 type Work @default.
• W2378133064 sameAs 2378133064 @default.
• W2378133064 citedByCount "28" @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642016 @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642017 @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642018 @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642019 @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642020 @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642021 @default.
• W2378133064 countsByYear W23781330642022 @default.
• W2378133064 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2378133064 hasAuthorship W2378133064A5027320968 @default.
• W2378133064 hasBestOaLocation W23781330641 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConcept C23123220 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConceptScore W2378133064C136764020 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConceptScore W2378133064C23123220 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConceptScore W2378133064C2522767166 @default.
• W2378133064 hasConceptScore W2378133064C41008148 @default.
• W2378133064 hasLocation W23781330641 @default.
• W2378133064 hasLocation W23781330642 @default.
• W2378133064 hasLocation W23781330643 @default.
• W2378133064 hasLocation W23781330644 @default.
• W2378133064 hasLocation W23781330645 @default.
• W2378133064 hasLocation W23781330646 @default.
• W2378133064 hasOpenAccess W2378133064 @default.
• W2378133064 hasPrimaryLocation W23781330641 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2086064646 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2115485936 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2119135658 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2119214692 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2153015554 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2357241418 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2366644548 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2376314740 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2384888906 @default.
• W2378133064 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2378133064 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2378133064 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2378133064 magId "2378133064" @default.
• W2378133064 workType "article" @default.