Hospital-Based Comparative Effectiveness Centers: Translating Research into Practice to Improve the Quality, Safety and Value of Patient Care
Open accessAbstract
Hospital-based comparative effectiveness (CE) centers provide a model that clinical leaders can use to improve evidence-based practice locally. The model is used by integrated health systems outside the US, but is less recognized in the US. Such centers can identify and adapt national evidence-based policies for the local setting, create local evidence-based policies in the absence of national policies, and implement evidence into practice through health information technology (HIT) and quality initiatives. Given the increasing availability of CE evidence and incentives to meaningfully use HIT, the relevance of this model to US practitioners is increasing. This is especially true in the context of healthcare reform, which will likely reduce reimbursements for care deemed unnecessary by published evidence or guidelines. There are challenges to operating hospital-based CE centers, but many of these challenges can be overcome using solutions developed by those currently leading such centers. In conclusion, these centers have the potential to improve the quality, safety and value of care locally, ultimately translating into higher quality and more cost-effective care nationally. To better understand this potential, the current activity and impact of hospital-based CE centers in the US should be rigorously examined.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Three of the included studies were literature reviews.
“Three of the included studies were literature reviews [11, 13, 36].”
From Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields—a systematic literature review (2019) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Gottlieb, R. (1987) · The New Yorker · Cited by 1,309 · see citing works
Blumenthal, D. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp0912825 · Cited by 727 · see citing works
The “3T’s” Road Map to Transform US Health Care
Dougherty, D. M., & Conway, P. H. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.19.2319 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Stetler, C. B., Mittman, B. S., & Francis, J. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-8 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Evidence-Based Decision Making: Global Evidence, Local Decisions
Clancy, C. M., & Cronin, K. A. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.151 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
The Origins, Development, and Passage of Medicare's Revolutionary Prospective Payment System
Mayes, R. (2006) · Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences · doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrj038 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Ulmer, N. C. (2010) · Arbitration International · doi:10.1093/arbitration/26.2.221 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Atkins, D., Fink, K., & Slutsky, J. (2005) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_part_2-200506211-00002 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Mitchell, M. D., Anderson, B. J., Williams, K., & Umscheid, C. A. (2009) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05103.x · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Self-citationFive Next Steps for a New National Program for Comparative-Effectiveness Research
VanLare, J. M., Conway, P. H., & Sox, H. C. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp1000096 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Luce, B. R., & Brown, R. E. (1995) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300005274 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Charting a Path From Comparative Effectiveness Funding to Improved Patient-Centered Health Care
Conway, P. H. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.259 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Slowing the Growth of Health Care Costs — Learning from International Experience
Davis, K. C. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp0805261 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Integrating local data into hospital-based healthcare technology assessment: Two case studies
Mitchell, M. D., Williams, K., Brennan, P. J., et al. (2010) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462310000334 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationImpact of CEDIT recommendations: An example of health technology assessment in a hospital network
Bodeau‐Livinec, F., Simon, E., Montagnier-Petrissans, C., Joël, M.-È., & Féry-Lemonnier, É. (2006) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462306050975 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program: Why Comparative Effectiveness Matters
Slutsky, J. R., & Clancy, C. M. (2008) · American Journal of Medical Quality · doi:10.1177/1062860608328567 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Acquiring Advanced Technology: Decision-making Strategies at Twelve Medical Centers
Weingart, S. N. (1993) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300005456 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Three “Inconvenient Truths” about Health Care
Fuchs, V. R. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp0807432 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Hailey, D. M. (2009) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462309090345 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Ia, K. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [14]McGregor M. Impact of TAU Reports. Vol. 2009: Technology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre Web site. Available at: http://www.mcgill.ca/tau/publications/2008/. Accessed July 21, 2010.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Roberts, S. L. E., Healey, A., & Sevdalis, N. (2019) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-019-0901-7 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Effect of Medicare’s Nonpayment for Hospital-Acquired Conditions: Lessons for Future Policy
Waters, T. M., Daniels, M. J., Bazzoli, G. J., Perencevich, E., Dunton, N., Staggs, V. S., Potter, C., Fareed, N., Liu, M., & Shorr, R. I. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5486 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
- Authors
- Umscheid, C. A., Williams, K., & Brennan, P. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Umscheid, Craig A.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2010-08-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1352-1355
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC2988155
- OpenAlex
- W1982434779
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 3.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pennsylvania
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- evidence-based practice, health information technology, quality of care, patient safety, value of care, health care reform, integrated health system, guideline adherence
- MeSH terms
- Patient Care, Hospitals, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Safety, United States, Safety Management, Translational Research, Biomedical, Comparative Effectiveness Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
