This guideline was developed to identify evidence-based best practices in haemophilia care delivery, and discuss the range of care providers and services that are most important to optimize outcomes for persons with haemophilia (PWH) across the United States. The guideline was developed following specific methods described in detail in this supplement and based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach). Direct evidence from published literature and the haemophilia community, as well as indirect evidence from other chronic diseases, were reviewed, synthesized and applied to create evidence-based recommendations. The Guideline panel suggests that the integrated care model be used over non-integrated care models for PWH (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in the evidence). For PWH with inhibitors and those at high risk for inhibitor development, the same recommendation was graded as strong, with moderate certainty in the evidence. The panel suggests that a haematologist, a specialized haemophilia nurse, a physical therapist, a social worker and round-the-clock access to a specialized coagulation laboratory be part of the integrated care team, over an integrated care team that does not include all of these components (conditional recommendation, very low certainty in the evidence). Based on available evidence, the integrated model of care in its current structure, is suggested for optimal care of PWH. There is a need for further appropriately designed studies that address unanswered questions about specific outcomes and the optimal structure of the integrated care delivery model in haemophilia.
Summary Background Clinical evidence shows that pediatric anesthesia patients are subject to a higher rate of life‐threatening medical errors than their adult counterparts. Medication error in adult anesthesia is estimated to occur to 1 in 133 anesthetic administrations, but such a figure has not been determined for pediatric anesthesia patients. Individual studies of medication error in pediatric anesthesia have ranged from rates of 0.01% to 1.92% of anesthetic uses. The present study is a systematic review that employs a meta‐analytic estimate to determine the rate of medication error in pediatric anesthesia. Methods A systematic review of the literature on pediatric anesthesia medication error was conducted using Medline, Cochrane Database, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov. A meta‐analytic estimate was used to determine the medication error rate for all of the included studies. Subgroup sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate possible sources of heterogeneity in included studies. Results Of the 433 initially screened records, 13 studies met inclusion criteria. Meta‐analytic estimate of medication error rate across all studies was 0.08% (95% CI 0.05%‐0.10%), or 1 out of 1250 anesthetics. Ten different countries were represented in the studies. Sample size of anesthetics reported on ranged from 296 to 2 316 635. Data collecting periods ranged from 3 months to 15 years. Six included studies individually reported higher rates of medication error in patients under 1 year of age. Conclusion The present systematic review revealed a medication error rate of 1 per 1250 anesthetic administrations in pediatric anesthesia. This result is significantly lower than would be expected given reported rates of medication error in adult anesthesia, which raises questions regarding the validity of research methods and reporting of medication error in pediatric anesthesia. Future investigations of medication error should employ methodologies other than self‐reporting of error, such as retrospective chart review.
Background Residency program prestige is an important variable medical students consider when creating their rank list. Doximity Residency Navigator is a ranking system that previous reports have shown significantly influences medical student application decisions. Doximity's use of peer nomination as a central component of its methodology for determining program rank has drawn criticism for its lack of objectivity. Doximity has not published information regarding how peer nomination and more objective measures are statistically weighted in reputation calculation. Objective This study assesses whether a strong negative correlation exists between residency program size and Doximity ranking. Methods A cross-sectional study of Doximity residency rankings from the 2018–2019 academic year was conducted. Data extracted from Doximity included program rank, size, and age. Data were additionally collected from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, National Institutes of Health, funding in 2018 and the US News & World Report Best Medical Schools 2019–2020. A multivariable linear regression model was used that included Doximity ranking as the outcome variable and residency program size as the predictor variable with adjustment for the aforementioned variables. Results Sixteen of the 28 specialties on Doximity were included in the analysis, representing 3388 unique residency programs. After adjustment for covariates, residency program size was a significant predictor of Doximity ranking (β = -1.84; 95% CI -2.01 to -1.66, P < .001). Conclusions These findings support the critique that the Doximity reputation ranking system may favor larger residency programs. More transparency for Doximity reputation ranking algorithm is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.