BACKGROUND: This study aims to propose a semi-automatic method for monitoring the waiting times of follow-up examinations within the National Health System (NHS) in Italy, which is currently not possible to due the absence of the necessary structured information in the official databases.
METHODS: A Natural Language Processing (NLP) based pipeline has been developed to extract the waiting time information from the text of referrals for follow-up examinations in the Lombardy Region. A manually annotated dataset of 10 000 referrals has been used to develop the pipeline and another manually annotated dataset of 10 000 referrals has been used to test its performance. Subsequently, the pipeline has been used to analyze all 12 million referrals prescribed in 2021 and performed by May 2022 in the Lombardy Region.
RESULTS: The NLP-based pipeline exhibited high precision (0.999) and recall (0.973) in identifying waiting time information from referrals\' texts, with high accuracy in normalization (0.948-0.998). The overall reporting of timing indications in referrals\' texts for follow-up examinations was low (2%), showing notable variations across medical disciplines and types of prescribing physicians. Among the referrals reporting waiting times, 16% experienced delays (average delay = 19 days, standard deviation = 34 days), with significant differences observed across medical disciplines and geographical areas.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of NLP proved to be a valuable tool for assessing waiting times in follow-up examinations, which are particularly critical for the NHS due to the significant impact of chronic diseases, where follow-up exams are pivotal. Health authorities can exploit this tool to monitor the quality of NHS services and optimize resource allocation.

In Cuba, there is neither a registry of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), nor are analysis of performance measures widely reported.
A review of Cuban studies of patients with STEMI was carried out to describe quality of medical care.
Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and SciELO, as well as archives of national journals, were all searched for articles on STEMI in Cuba, from 2000 to March 2020. They were included if they reported number or percentage of application of reperfusion therapy; administration of aspirin, enalapril-captopril (ACEI) or beta-blockers; status of patients at discharge; and patient or system delay times. Finally, 17 reports with 7823 patients were included.
Thrombolytic therapy was administered to 3991 patients (51%), and 695 patients (8.9%) died. Only four studies, with 880 patients, presented data about prescription of ACEI, aspirin, and beta-blockers, which were administered to 381 (45.3%), 824 (93.6%), 464 (52.7%) patients, respectively. Coronary intervention was reported in 5 studies with 3422 patients, being performed in 661 (19.3%).  Conclusions: Quality of care of patients with STEMI seems to be poorer than reported in similar scenarios. Thrombolytic administration is still low, although mortality decreases in this period. Other pharmacological treatments were insufficiently fulfilled.

Healthcare accreditation programmes have been adopted internationally to maintain the quality and safety of services. Accreditation assesses the compliance of organizations to a series of standards. The evidence base supporting the benefits of accreditation is mixed, potentially influenced by differences in local implementation and operationalization of standards. Successful implementation is associated with optimizing regulation, funding, and government commitment. Implementation of accreditation is a complex intervention that needs to be tailored to meet contextual differences across settings. Comparing why and how accreditation is implemented across countries supports the effective implementation of new programmes and refinements to existing systems. This article presents four case studies from Australia, Botswana, Denmark, and Jordan to consider a geographic spread and mix of high- and upper-middle-income countries. The data were derived from a review of accreditation programme documents and follow-up discussions with directors of the accrediting bodies in the countries of interest. Each case study was summarized according to a standardized framework for comparison: (i) goals (why), (ii) programme implementation (how), (iii) outcomes based on pre-post measures (what), and (iv) lessons learned (enablers and barriers). The accreditation programmes were all introduced in the 2000s to improve quality and safety. Documents from each country outlined motivations for introducing an accreditation programme, which was predominantly initiated by the government. The programmes were adopted in demarcated healthcare sectors (e.g. primary care and hospital settings), with a mix of mandatory and voluntary approaches. Implementation support centred on the interpretation and operationalization of standards and follow-up on variation in compliance with standards, after announced surveys. Most standards focused on patient safety, patient centredness, and governance but differed between using standard sets on quality management or supportive processes for patient care. Methods for evaluation of programme success and outcomes measured varied. Frequently reported enablers of successful implementation included strong leadership and ownership of the process. A lack of awareness of quality and safety, insufficient training in quality improvement methods, and transfer of staff represented the most common challenges. This case analysis of accreditation programmes in a variety of countries highlights consistent strategies utilized, key enabling factors, barriers, and the influence of contextual differences. Our framework for describing why, how, what, and lessons learned demonstrates innovation and experimentation in approaches used across high- and upper-middle-income countries, hospital and primary care, and specialist clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Although it is difficult to define the quality of stroke care, acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with moderate-to-severe neurological deficits may benefit from thrombectomy-capable hospitals (TCHs) that have a stroke unit, stroke specialists, and a substantial endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) case volume.
METHODS: From national audit data collected between 2013 and 2016, potential EVT candidates arriving within 24 hours with a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥6 were identified. Hospitals were classified as TCHs (≥15 EVT case/y, stroke unit, and stroke specialists), primary stroke hospitals (PSHs) without EVT (PSHs-without-EVT, 0 case/y), and PSHs-with-EVT. Thirty-day and 1-year case-fatality rates (CFRs) were analyzed using random intercept multilevel logistic regression.
RESULTS: Out of 35 004 AIS patients, 7954 (22.7%) EVT candidates were included in this study. The average 30-day CFR was 16.3% in PSHs-without-EVT, 14.8% in PSHs-with-EVT, and 11.0% in TCHs. The average 1-year CFR was 37.5% in PSHs-without-EVT, 31.3% in PSHs-with-EVT, and 26.2% in TCHs. In TCHs, a significant reduction was not found in the 30-day CFR (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.12), but was found in the 1-year CFR (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.96).
CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year CFR was significantly reduced when EVT candidates were treated at TCHs. TCHs are not defined based solely on the number of EVTs, but also based on the presence of a stroke unit and stroke specialists. This supports the need for TCH certification in Korea and suggests that annual EVT case volume could be used to qualify TCHs.

Evaluation of clinical ethical case consultations has been discussed as an important research task in recent decades. A rigid framework of evaluation is essential to improve quality of consultations and, thus, quality of patient care. Different approaches to evaluate those services appropriately and to determine adequate empirical endpoints have been proposed. A key challenge is to provide an answer to the question as to which empirical endpoints-and for what reasons-should be considered when evaluating the quality of a service. In this paper, we argue for an approach that adopts the role of ethics consultants as its point of departure. In a first step, we describe empirical and ethical characteristics of evaluating clinical ethical case. We show that the mode of action and the explicit normative character of the interventions constitute two characteristics which pose challenges to the selection of appropriate quality criteria and require special attention. In a second step, we outline the way in which an analysis of the role of ethics consultants in the context of a clinical ethical case consultation services can account for the existing challenges by linking empirically measurable endpoints with normative theory. Finally, we discuss practical implications of our model for evaluation research.

BACKGROUND: The rapid shift in hospital governance in the past few years suggests greater orthopedist involvement in management roles, would have wide-reaching benefits for the efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare delivery. This paper analyzes the dynamics of orthopedist involvement in the management of clinical activities for three orthopedic care pathways, by examining orthopedists\' level of involvement, describing the implications of such involvement, and indicating the main responses of other healthcare workers to such orthopedist involvement.
METHODS: We selected four contrasting cases according to their level of governance in a Canadian university hospital center. We documented the institutional dynamics of orthopedist involvement in the management of clinical activities using semi-structured interviews until data saturation was reached at the 37th interview.
RESULTS: Our findings show four levels (Inactive, Reactive, Contributory and Active) of orthopedist involvement in clinical activities. With the underlying nature of orthopedic surgeries, there are: (i) some activities for which decisions cannot be programmed in advance, and (ii) others for which decisions can be programmed. The management of unforeseen events requires a higher level of orthopedist involvement than the management of events that can be programmed.
CONCLUSIONS: Beyond simply identifying the underlying dynamics of orthopedists\' involvement in clinical activities, this study analyzed how such involvement impacts management activities and the quality-of-care results for patients.

UNASSIGNED: Selective reporting of results in published case-control studies has been widely suspected, but little comprehensive information on selective reporting is available with regard to case-control studies. We aimed to evaluate the concordance of findings between publications and the protocols of case-control studies and to assess the level of selective reporting of results in case-control studies.
UNASSIGNED: The databases of Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify case-control study protocols published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. The numbers and characteristics of predefined exposures (or factors) were extracted from the protocols. The reported and unreported factors were both collected from the published studies and protocols. The frequency of selective reporting of results were estimated by identifying the discrepancies of factors between the protocols and the published studies. Study sample size and the extent of selective reporting of factors were measured by a Spearman correlation analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Fourteen protocols with 24 published studies and 159 factors were identified, of which eight protocols (57.1%) had discrepancies between the publications and protocols. The prevalence of incomplete reporting in published case-control studies was 42.9% (6/14), with participant characteristics, anthropometric and laboratory measurement variables more likely to be unreported. A total of 16,835 cases and 56,049 controls were recruited in the 14 protocols of case-control studies (sample size ranges from 428 to 52,596 per study). Sample size had no statistical significance with selective reporting of results (P > 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The study protocols should be publicly available prior to the completion of case-control studies so that the potential bias can be assessed by the readers. Our findings highlight the need for investigators, peer reviewers, and readers to exercise increased awareness and scrutiny due to the undesirable practice of selective reporting of results in medical sciences causing the loss of potentially important information, thus impacting quality of personalized attitude in healthcare in the context of the predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.

Sometimes medical errors should not be disclosed. We report a case of semen samples exchange, during a homologous artificial insemination procedure, where a bioethics consultation was required. The bioethics consultation addressed ethical and legal elements in play, supporting non-disclosure to some of the subjects involved. Through a proper methodology, gathering factual and juridical elements, a consultant can show when a moral dilemma between values and rights-privacy versus fatherhood, in our case-is unsubstantial, in a given context, because of the groundlessness of the value or the right itself. However, being the error elicited by organizational factors, a broader ethical pronouncement was needed. Under such circumstances, ethical evaluation should engage in a sort of \'ethical-based root-cause analysis\', linking ethical principles to quality aims and showing the opportunity to integrate ethical methodology in healthcare management. From this perspective, errors may become an incentive to promote high-quality organizations, attending to the central value of person even through the organizational process.