About us | About Scoope | Contact us
Scopelogo
 
google

 
  
 Sponsor Links
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Publisher > Medical publishing > Business Intelligence, knowledge management systems > Case Studies/Industry study reports> Medical information - industry information
NEWS ARCHIVES ACROSS CATEGORY
  News archives across months
  News archives across themes
    News archives across category
 
  News articles recently covered under
Medical information - industry information

   
 

Wolters Kluwer-Rockburn Institute study links evidence-based clinical decision support to higher value-based care scores
- 16 Apr 2018

Wolters Kluwer Health has released the results of a study conducted in partnership with the Rockburn Institute that revealed when nurses use Lippincott Advisor and Lippincott Procedures at the bedside, hospitals' Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) scores went up. Notably, the study found that hospitals using both evidence-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools exceeded the national average and had a nearly 25% higher average rank on 2017 scores than their peers, based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) performance measures.

The Rockburn Institute, a non-profit healthcare research consultancy group, evaluated data compiled over a three-year period from approximately 3,000 hospitals nationwide that participated in the VBP program. The performance of hospitals using both Lippincott Procedures and Lippincott Advisor was compared to the other hospitals that had received VBP Total Performance Scores for 2014 and 2015. Scores of hospitals using both CDS tools were then evaluated for 2017 against previous years' results.

Among the key study findings were that hospitals using both CDS tools achieved higher VBP Total Performance scores and adjustment factors than the national average; an average VBP Total Performance Score rank in 2017 that was nearly 25% higher than all other hospitals; and improved VBP Efficiency Domain scores.

Lippincott Procedures provides real-time access to step-by-step guides for more than 1,700 evidence-based procedures and skills, while Lippincott Advisor provides point-of-care access to information on more than 12,000 diseases, diagnostic tests, treatments, patient teaching, sentinel events, cultural perspectives, and medications.

Brought to you by Scope e-Knowledge Center, a trusted global partner for digital content transformation solutions - Abstracting & Indexing (A&I), Knowledge Modeling (Taxonomies, Thesauri and Ontologies), and Metadata Enrichment & Entity Extraction.

Click here

Wolters Kluwer Health to acquire Firecracker
- 06 Mar 2018

Wolters Kluwer Health has signed an agreement to acquire Firecracker, an adaptive learning, assessment, and study-planning solution used by more than 20 percent of U.S. medical students. Firecracker will become part of the Health Learning, Research & Practice group, which produces high quality medical education and practice content under the Lippincott imprint.

Founded in 2009, Firecracker uses a technology - and data-driven approach to improve medical student learning in preparation for high stakes exams, including the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). The platform, in which more than 85 million questions are answered annually, is powered by an adaptive algorithm that delivers personalized learning and remediation to ensure ongoing retention of content and preparedness for medical school finals and certification exams.

Firecracker has 16 employees and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Revenues are recurring in nature and derived from the U.S. market. Wolters Kluwer expects the acquisition to deliver a return on invested capital above its after tax weighted average cost of capital (8%) within three to five years of completion and to have an immaterial impact on adjusted earnings.

Completion of the transaction is subject to customary closing conditions.

Brought to you by Scope e-Knowledge Center, a trusted global partner for digital content transformation solutions - Abstracting & Indexing (A&I), Knowledge Modeling (Taxonomies, Thesauri and Ontologies), and Metadata Enrichment & Entity Extraction.

Click here

New Japanese study finds using UpToDate from Wolters Kluwer helps reduce medical errors, the third-highest cause of death in the US
- 14 Feb 2018

Wolters Kluwer Health, a global provider of information and point of care solutions for the healthcare industry, has announced that a Japanese study published in the International Journal of Medical Informatics has found a significant association between use of UpToDate clinical decision support (CDS) and reduced diagnostic errors. Physicians who used UpToDate had a significantly lower rate of diagnostic errors compared with a control group without UpToDate (2 percent versus 24 percent). The authors concluded that 'UpToDate use was significantly associated with diagnostic error reduction.'

The new research highlights the impact of Wolters Kluwer's acclaimed decision support resource in reducing variability in care, increasing patient safety and improving clinical effectiveness.

The study comes after researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated in a 2016 study that medical errors should rank as the third leading cause of death in the US. In the new study, the team of Drs. Taro Shimizu, Takaaki Nemoto and Yasuharu Tokuda sought to evaluate how computer-based systems might help to prevent and reduce diagnostic errors. They conducted the study at the outpatient department of the Tokyo Joto Hospital, a community-based hospital in Tokyo, Japan.

The study, "Effectiveness of a clinical knowledge support system for reducing diagnostic errors in outpatient care in Japan: A retrospective study" was published in the January 2018 issue of the International Journal of Medical Informatics.

Brought to you by Scope e-Knowledge Center, a trusted global partner for digital content transformation solutions - Abstracting & Indexing (A&I), Knowledge Modeling (Taxonomies, Thesauri and Ontologies), and Metadata Enrichment & Entity Extraction.

Click here

Wolters Kluwer Clinical Drug Information used by more than 96 percent of Honor Roll Hospitals in latest U.S. News and World Report
- 23 Sep 2014

Healthcare information provider Wolters Kluwer Health has announced that its Clinical Drug Information solutions are currently used by more than 96 percent of hospitals achieving Honor Roll status in U.S. News & World Report's Best Hospitals 2014-2015 and Best Children's Hospital's 2014-2015 rankings.

The 2014-15 hospital rankings evaluated surveys of more than 9,500 physicians across nearly 5,000 medical centers in the U.S. High scores within at least six of the 16 specialties evaluated earned 17 hospitals a place on the Honor Roll. Death rates, patient safety and hospital reputation were a few of the many factors considered.

In the category of children's hospitals, evaluations were conducted across 10 specialties, and high scores in three or more specialties earned Honor Roll Status. Specifically, Lexicomp —a comprehensive drug reference solution offered through Wolters Kluwer Clinical Drug Information—is currently used by 19 of the 20 top-ranked pediatric hospitals for neonatology.

Wolters Kluwer Clinical Drug Information unites the expertise of more than 300 professionals to provide consistent drug information across its leading solutions Lexicomp, Medi-Span® and Facts & Comparisons®. Through the provision of innovative and reliable resources in multiple formats, these solutions help reduce errors, improve patient safety, lower system-wide costs and increase workflow efficiency throughout the continuum of care.

Click here

Nurses and Healthcare Institutions accepting professional use of online reference and mobile technology, says Wolters Kluwer Health survey
- 11 Sep 2014

Wolters Kluwer Health, a global provider of information and point-of-care solutions for the healthcare industry, has announced the results of a new survey that looks at the mobile device, Internet, and social media usage habits of nurse practitioners. According to the findings, nurses are increasingly relying on mobile devices, social media and the Internet.

The findings indicate that 65 percent of nurses surveyed said they currently use a mobile device for professional purposes at work. The study also found that, according to the practitioners, 95 percent of healthcare organisations allow nurses to consult websites and other online resources for clinical information at work.

The survey uncovered that 83 percent of nurses perceive that their organization's policy allows patient care staff access to public web sites, including social media, to access general health information that will help them with patient conditions. The findings reveal that 65 percent of nurses are using mobile devices for professional purposes at work at least 30 minutes per day, while 20 percent use them for two hours or more. Also notable, these same results indicated that the vast majority of organizations strictly prohibit actual interaction with patients through the technology.

Although many institutions are embracing mobile devices, Judith McCann, Chief Nurse, Lippincott Solutions, Wolters Kluwer Health, Professional & Education, cautions that not all information is created equal. This is especially true in healthcare where what is acceptable and current can change quickly.

Within the 95 percent who say they access health information at work, 48 percent of respondents say their healthcare institutions encourage nurses to access online resources; 41 percent allow for occasional use; and 5 percent only as a last resort. Among those who use mobile devices at work, Nurse Managers, at 77 percent, are more likely to use them than Staff Nurses, at 58 percent.

These results are similar to the results of a 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health physician survey that found a majority of physicians are now using mobile devices in their daily practice, including 80 percent reporting using a smartphone and 60 percent using a tablet. According to this research, physicians are more likely to use smartphones to access drug information and for communication purposes, while tablets are more commonly used to gain access to medical research and medical records, as well as access to reimbursement and billing information.

Nurses are also using mobile devices as a preferred means to access trusted drug information. According to McCann, more than 445,000 clinicians downloaded the popular Nursing Drug Handbook Apps since they first launched in 2012.

The latest survey was sponsored by the Lippincott Solutions product team within Wolters Kluwer Health. Lippincott Solutions is a series of comprehensive, integrated software applications that includes advanced online workflow technology, current evidence-based clinical information, and professional development tools for the practicing clinician. The web suite of products helps healthcare provider organizations make evidence actionable at the bedside by supporting evidence-based practice, standardizing care, saving time, streamlining workflows, and fostering clinical excellence.

The survey results are published on the Lippincott Solutions website at www.LippincottMobile.com.

Click here

Study examines possible publication bias and conflict of interest in article reprints
- 02 Jul 2012

Journal BMJ has published the results of a case-control study titled “High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding”. The study analysed the extent to which funding and study design were associated with high reprint orders, and the financial implications of the same.

Reprints of published articles are seen as a potential valuable means of disseminating information. The pharmaceutical industry is thought to be the largest purchaser of reprints, which constitute the most common form of promotional material circulated among doctors, after gifts and sample medicines.

Since pharmaceutical companies may purchase from journals copies of articles funded by them, reprints may represent a possible source of conflict of interest leading to publication bias. Orders may be worth large sums of money and possibly influence the chance of a paper being published. This is particularly so as the present framework allows editors to be responsible for a journal’s finances apart from its content. Also, studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are reportedly more likely to be published in journals with high impact factors, as against those without Big Pharma funding.

The study authors sought information on reprint orders from the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and BMJ. Of the five, only two – the Lancet and the BMJ – consented to provide the data. The researchers found that high reprint articles, irrespective of journal, were significantly more likely to be sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the reprint orders were substantial, equating to a large amount of income generated. Thus reprint orders could potentially be a source of publication bias, although the study was not designed with that in mind.

US scientists more likely than others to publish fake research, says study
- 17 Nov 2010

US scientists are considerably more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, according to a study published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The journal is co-owned by the Institute of Medical Ethics (IME) and BMJ Group.

The study author searched the PubMed database for scientific research papers that had been retracted between 2000 and 2010. It was found that a total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. About three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545). The rest of the retracted papers were attributed to data fabrication or falsification, the study found. Further, the study noted that the highest number of retracted papers was written by US first authors, accounting for one third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud.

The UK, Japan, China and India each had more than 40 papers withdrawn during the decade. Asian nations, including South Korea, accounted for 30 percent of retractions. Of these, one in four was attributed to fraud.

According to the study, the fakes were more likely to appear in leading publications with a high 'impact factor'. It noted that 53 percent of the faked research papers had been written by a first author who was a 'repeat offender'. Such a case was found in one in five (18 percent) of the flawed papers. Each first author who was a repeat fraudster had an average of six co-authors, each of whom had had another three retractions.

The average number of authors on all retracted papers was three, but some had 10 or more. Faked research papers were significantly more likely to have multiple authors, the study noted.

Search for more case studies

To access our daily STM news feed through your iPhone, iPad, or other smartphones, please visit www.myscoope.com for a mobile friendly reading experience.


BMJ report examines financial ties of WHO advisors with pharmaceutical majors
- 07 Jun 2010

A joint investigation by publisher BMJ with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has revealed that key scientists behind the WHO advice on stocking of pandemic flu drugs had financial ties with companies which stood to profit.

According to media reports, the inquiry disclosed that WHO guidance on the use of antiviral drugs and vaccines, issued in 2004, was authored by three scientists who had earlier received payment for other work from Roche (which makes Tamiflu), and GlaxoSmithKline (manufacturer of Relenza). While the experts consulted disclosed their industry ties in research papers and at universities, the WHO itself did not publicly disclose any of these in its seminal 2004 guidance for use of medicines during an influenza pandemic.

The WHO's advice had then led governments across the globe to stock huge quantities of antivirals. The organisation's decision to declare a pandemic in June 2009 triggered the purchase of hastily manufactured vaccines worth billion of dollars. Much of these stocks have reportedly gone unused as the pandemic turned out to be far less lethal than some experts feared. This led to suspicions of undue influence of big pharma companies on WHO decisions.

The investigation also raised queries about the WHO's Emergency Committee, the 16-member group formed in 2009 to advise the director general on the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. The WHO requires all members of the Emergency Committee to sign a confidentiality agreement, provide a declaration of interests, and agree to give their consultative time freely, without compensation. However, the BMJ report reveals, only one member of the committee has been publicly named - Prof. John MacKenzie, who chairs it. According to the BMJ, at least one of the members on the Emergency Committee had received payment from GSK in 2009. The BMJ article also looks at how the FDA and the European Medicines Agency reviewed the drugs Relenza and Tamiflu.

Meanwhile, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan defended the agency's position on maintaining the privacy of the names of the Emergency Committee until their work is complete in a WHO statement.

Search for more industry information


Ghostwriting in medical journals is highly prevalent, says JAMA study
- 11 Sep 2009

Editors at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) have released a new study on the prevalence of ghostwriting. The move follows recent reports that scientific research has been contaminated by ghost writers funded by drug companies.

According to the study, six of the top medical journals published a significant number of ghostwritten articles in 2008. The authors of 630 articles took an online questionnaire designed by the researchers. Of this, 7.8 percent admitted contributions to their articles by people whose work should have qualified them to be named as authors on the papers but who were not listed.

Responding authors reported a 10.9 percent rate of ghostwriting in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the highest rate among the journals. An NEJM representative has questioned the study’s methodology while informing that the publication is currently tightening its ghostwriting policies. The study also reported a ghostwriting rate of 7.9 percent in JAMA and 4.9 percent in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

It was found that ghost authors were most prevalent in research articles, as against opinion pieces like reviews or editorials. The new study, yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal, was made public at an international meeting of journal editors in Vancouver.

Ghostwriting refers to medical writers who, sponsored by a drug or medical device manufacturer, make major research or writing contributions to articles that are then published under the names of academic authors.

Search for more such industry reports in K-Store

Discuss this NEWS


For banner ads click here