In the USA, an estimated 40–50 million operations are performed annually, with high rates of adverse events. Since the 1980s, report cards have been used for outcome measures and to improve safety of surgical care. As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV—an initiative aimed at publishing evidence-based reviews as they are completed to help healthcare leaders, researchers and policymakers act more quickly on evidence-supported practices—we performed an updated review on the certainty of evidence on patient safety practices related to the use of surgical report cards and outcome measurements.

Systematic review using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched from November 2011 to May 2023.

We included primary research studies (randomised control trials or observational studies with a comparison group, including pre–post studies) or observational studies that investigated a surgical report card in adult or paediatric surgical patients at the hospital or surgeon level in inpatient or outpatient settings. Excluded studies included: narrative reviews, scoping reviews, editorials, commentaries, abstracts, studies that measured only patient knowledge or levels of engagement or studies using local surgical dashboard data.

Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Specific items in the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions tool and a modification of the National Institutes of Health Tool were used to assess for bias in studies. Two reviewers assessed each study for risk of bias. A modified version of the GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of evidence.

We identified 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria: 13 primary research studies and 6 descriptive studies of surgical collaboratives. Of the primary studies, nine used a pre–post or longitudinal study design and four used a regression discontinuity or concurrent controlled design. Seven of the studies were about the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. Five studies were from single institutions and the remainder included nine to greater than 700 hospitals. Pre–post studies of report cards that prompted quality improvement (QI) programmes all reported improvements in outcomes, longitudinal studies reported benefits in some but not all outcomes and one in four controlled before-and-after studies reported a statistically significant mortality benefit. All studies, except for one, were at moderate or high risk of bias. Six collaboratives were identified with preliminary data.

Based on the above evidence, the theoretical rationale and parallel evidence in other settings, we judged that it was moderate certainty that report cards and outcomes measurements can improve surgical outcomes. However, given the evidence from studies where report cards were actively linked to institutional QI initiatives, we recommend that outcome data must be paired with actionable QI efforts to meaningfully improve patient outcomes.

Strong primary healthcare enhances resource efficiency and resilience. Type 2 diabetes poses a growing global health challenge, with Argentina’s healthcare system struggling to detect and manage the disease effectively. Many patients bypass primary healthcare for secondary facilities, undermining continuity of care and increasing costs. Following a diagnostic process in collaboration with policymakers, we propose evaluating a redesigned primary care model consisting of codesigned evidence-based implementation strategies to improve type 2 diabetes management in Mendoza, Argentina.

This is an efficient, parallel-arm cluster randomised controlled Hybrid Type II trial with 12 clusters (administrative areas with 2–3 health facilities) allocated 1:1 to control (usual care) or intervention. In phase I, we will codesign, pilot and refine an implementation strategy package. In phase II, we will conduct the trial: 9-month baseline data collection, 15-month intervention and 6-month sustainability period. We will enrol a cohort of 396 patients with type 2 diabetes at primary healthcare centres and follow them for 12 months during the intervention and 6 months sustainment using routine clinical records and patient surveys. In phase III, we will conduct analysis, report and disseminate findings. The primary outcome will be a composite outcome including glycaemic control (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)

All study activities will comply with national and international ethics guidelines, presenting minimal risk to participants. The protocol was submitted and approved by the local independent ethics committee at the Mendoza Ministry of Health (Consejo Provincial de Evaluación ética en investigación en Salud-Provincial Health Research Ethics Review Board, Reference number: 149/2024). Facility-level permission will be obtained for participation and sharing of deidentified data. Written informed consent will be required from study participants, who will receive information on the study’s purpose, procedures, risks and benefits. Dissemination activities and outputs will include writing and submitting manuscripts for publication; writing policy briefs to support strategy implementation in other regions or countries; and tailoring outputs for patients, clinicians and researchers. We anticipate that improvements in disease management and patient experience will have clinical and economic benefits related to reduced usage of secondary-level and tertiary-level facilities, lower cost per visit and a reduced number of clinical events related to diabetes.

ISRCTN63277390.

Studies suggest that extreme heat events can have negative effects on mental health. However, characterisation of these effects in urban communities remains limited, and few studies have investigated the potential modifying effects of demographic, clinical and environmental characteristics. The aim of this study is to address this knowledge gap and quantify the impacts of extreme heat on mental health, health service use and mental well-being in vulnerable urban populations.

In this multidisciplinary project, we will assess mental health outcomes in different populations by bringing together two distinct datasets: electronic health record (EHR) data on mental health service users and data from general public participants of Urban Mind, a citizen science project. We will use EHRs from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the North London NHS Foundation Trust (NLFT), from six boroughs which collectively cover more than 1.8 million residents in Greater London, to capture mental health service use and mortality among people with existing diagnoses of mental illness across 2008–2023. We will use smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment data from Urban Mind to measure mental well-being in the general population (2018–2023). These datasets will be linked to high-resolution spatiotemporal data on temperature, fine and coarse particulate matter (PM_2.5, PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and density of large mature tree canopy. We will employ novel quasi-experimental designs, including case time series and case-crossover analysis, to examine the impact of extreme heat on mental health and explore effect modification by sociodemographic, clinical and environmental factors, including air pollution and types of green space coverage. We will also develop a microsimulation model combined with the InVEST urban cooling model to assess and forecast the mental health and social care impacts of extreme heat events and the mitigation of these impacts by different green space coverage and pollution-reduction policies. With a core team composed of researchers, community organisations, industry partners and specialist policy experts, this project will consider lived experience, benefit from broad stakeholder engagement and address gaps in policy and practice.

Each component of this project has been approved by the relevant ethics committee (ref RESCM-22/23-6905 for Urban Mind, LRS/DP-23/24-41409 for the co-development of a screening tool, 23/SC/0257 for the SLaM EHRs, and 24/EE/0178 for the NLFT EHRs). Our dissemination plan includes peer-reviewed scientific articles, policy briefs, a practical guide on fostering ecological and human resilience at the neighbourhood level, and a technical guide for planting and improving the growing conditions of large canopy trees.