-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials.Studies recruiting people recovering from strokeEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditionsEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgeryThree studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Home Care Services, Hospital-Based; Hospitalization; Humans; Length of Stay; Mortality; Patient Care; Patient Discharge; Patient Readmission; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28651296
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000356.pub4 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Jul 2010Religiously affiliated hospitals provide nearly 20% of US beds, and many prohibit certain end-of-life and reproductive health treatments. Little is known about physician... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Religiously affiliated hospitals provide nearly 20% of US beds, and many prohibit certain end-of-life and reproductive health treatments. Little is known about physician experiences in religious institutions.
OBJECTIVE
Assess primary care physicians' experiences and beliefs regarding conflict with religious hospital policies for patient care.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional survey.
PARTICIPANTS
General internists, family physicians, and general practitioners from the AMA Masterfile.
MAIN MEASURES
In a questionnaire mailed in 2007, we asked physicians whether they had worked in a religiously affiliated hospital or practice, whether they had experienced conflict with the institution over religiously based patient care policies and how they believed physicians should respond to such conflicts. We used chi-square and multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between physicians' demographic and religious characteristics and their responses.
KEY RESULTS
Of 879 eligible physicians, 446 (51%) responded. In analyses adjusting for survey design, 43% had worked in a religiously affiliated institution. Among these, 19% had experienced conflict over religiously based policies. Most physicians (86%) believed when clinical judgment conflicts with religious hospital policy, physicians should refer patients to another institution. Compared with physicians ages 26-29 years, older physicians were less likely to have experienced conflict with religiously based policies [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) compared with 30-34 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.11); 35-46 years: 0.07 (0.01-0.72); 47-60 years: 0.02 (0.00-0.10)]. Compared with those who never attend religious services, those who do attend were less likely to have experienced conflict [attend once a month or less: odds ratio 0.06 (0.01-0.29); attend twice a month or more: 0.22 (0.05-0.98)]. Respondents with no religious affiliation were more likely than others to believe doctors should disregard religiously based policies that conflict with clinical judgment (13% vs. 3%; p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS
Hospitals and policy-makers may need to balance the competing claims of physician autonomy and religiously based institutional policies.
Topics: Adult; Attitude of Health Personnel; Conflict, Psychological; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Guideline Adherence; Hospitals, Religious; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Care; Physician-Patient Relations; Physicians, Primary Care; Religion and Medicine
PubMed: 20373045
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-010-1329-6 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Oct 2012Serious lapses in patient care result from failure to follow-up test results. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Serious lapses in patient care result from failure to follow-up test results.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence quantifying the extent of failure to follow-up test results and the impact for ambulatory patients.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Inspec and the Cochrane Database were searched for English-language literature from 1995 to 2010.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies which provided documented quantitative evidence of the number of tests not followed up for patients attending ambulatory settings including: outpatient clinics, academic medical or community health centres, or primary care practices.
DATA EXTRACTION
Four reviewers independently screened 768 articles.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria and reported wide variation in the extent of tests not followed-up: 6.8% (79/1163) to 62% (125/202) for laboratory tests; 1.0% (4/395) to 35.7% (45/126) for radiology. The impact on patient outcomes included missed cancer diagnoses. Test management practices varied between settings with many individuals involved in the process. There were few guidelines regarding responsibility for patient notification and follow-up. Quantitative evidence of the effectiveness of electronic test management systems was limited although there was a general trend towards improved test follow-up when electronic systems were used.
LIMITATIONS
Most studies used medical record reviews; hence evidence of follow-up action relied upon documentation in the medical record. All studies were conducted in the US so care should be taken in generalising findings to other countries.
CONCLUSIONS
Failure to follow-up test results is an important safety concern which requires urgent attention. Solutions should be multifaceted and include: policies relating to responsibility, timing and process of notification; integrated information and communication technologies facilitating communication; and consideration of the multidisciplinary nature of the process and the role of the patient. It is essential that evaluations of interventions are undertaken and solutions integrated into the work and context of ambulatory care delivery.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Patient Care; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 22183961
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1949-5 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Feb 2015Measures of patients' care experiences are increasingly used as quality measures in accountability initiatives. As the prominence and financial impact of patient... (Review)
Review
Measures of patients' care experiences are increasingly used as quality measures in accountability initiatives. As the prominence and financial impact of patient experience measures have increased, so too have concerns about the relevance and fairness of including them as indicators of health care quality. Using evidence from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) surveys, the most widely used patient experience measures in the United States, we address seven common critiques of patient experience measures: (1) consumers do not have the expertise needed to evaluate care quality; (2) patient "satisfaction" is subjective and thus not valid or actionable; (3) increasing emphasis on improving patient experiences encourages health care providers and plans to fulfill patient desires, leading to care that is inappropriate, ineffective, and/or inefficient; (4) there is a trade-off between providing good patient experiences and providing high-quality clinical care; (5) patient scores cannot be fairly compared across health care providers or plans due to factors beyond providers' control; (6) response rates to patient experience surveys are low, or responses reflect only patients with extreme experiences; and (7) there are faster, cheaper, and more customized ways to survey patients than the standardized approaches mandated by federal accountability initiatives.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Health Personnel; Humans; Patient Care; Patient Satisfaction; Patient-Centered Care; Social Responsibility
PubMed: 25416601
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3111-7 -
BMC Medicine Jul 2018Caregivers may promote the uptake of science into patient care and the practice of evidence-informed medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Caregivers may promote the uptake of science into patient care and the practice of evidence-informed medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether caregiver-mediated (non-clinical caregiver-delivered) interventions are effective in improving patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Scopus databases from inception to February 27, 2017. Interventions (with a comparison group) reporting on a quality improvement intervention mediated by a caregiver and directed to a patient, in all ages and patient-care settings, were selected for inclusion. A three-category framework was developed to characterize caregiver-mediated interventions: inform (e.g., provide knowledge), activate (e.g., prompt action), and collaborate (e.g., lead to interaction between caregivers and other groups [e.g., care providers]).
RESULTS
Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 64% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most commonly assessed outcomes were patient- (n = 40) and caregiver-oriented (n = 33); few health system- (n = 10) and provider-oriented (n = 2) outcomes were reported. Patient outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) were most improved by caregiver-mediated interventions that provided condition and treatment education (e.g., symptom management information) and practical condition-management support (e.g., practicing medication protocol). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., stress-related/psychiatric outcomes) were most improved by interventions that activated caregiver roles (e.g., monitoring blood glucose) and provided information related to that action (e.g., why and how to monitor). The risk of bias was generally high, and the overall quality of the evidence was low-moderate, based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation ratings.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a large body of research, including many RCTs, to support the use of caregiver-mediated interventions that inform and activate caregivers to improve patient and caregiver outcomes. Select caregiver-mediated interventions improve patient (inform-activate) and caregiver (inform-activate-collaborate) outcomes and should be considered by all researchers implementing patient- and family-oriented research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
PROSPERO, CRD42016052509 .
Topics: Caregivers; Humans; Patient Care
PubMed: 29996850
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1097-4 -
Asian Nursing Research Aug 2022To compare patient care multipliers estimated from subjective evaluation against work sampling (WS) techniques in genetic nursing activities. (Observational Study)
Observational Study
PURPOSE
To compare patient care multipliers estimated from subjective evaluation against work sampling (WS) techniques in genetic nursing activities.
METHODS
An observational WS technique was conducted from November to December 2019 with nine genetic nurses in a tertiary referral center in Malaysia. The WS activity instrument was devised, validated, and pilot tested. All care- and non-care-related activities were sampled at 10-minute intervals within 8 hours of working over 14 days, followed by a subjective evaluation of activities survey over the same period. Bonferroni correction was undertaken for multiple testing with a p value of 0.0025.
RESULTS
The two techniques produced significant differences in genetic nurses' activities categorization. The WS showed that compared with subjective evaluation, direct care (19.3% vs. 45.0%; p < .001) was estimated to be significantly lower, and indirect care (40.4% vs. 25.6%; p < .001) and unit-related activity (28.5% vs. 16.9%; p < .001) were higher. Both techniques produced a similar proportion of time spent in other non-care activities (12.0%) but differed in genetic meetings and information-gathering activities. While the multipliers for patient face-to-face contact were significantly larger between WS (4.57) and the survey (1.94), the multipliers for patient care time were smaller between WS (1.47) and the survey (1.24), indicating that caution should be taken when multiplying for patient contact time compared to patient care activity to determine the cost of care provision.
CONCLUSION
A considerable proportion of time spent away from the patient needs to be allocated to patient-related care time. Thus, estimating the paid cost solely based on direct time with patients considerably underestimates the cost per hour of nurses' care. It is recommended to employ 'patient-related activity' instead of the 'face-to-face contact' multiplier because the former did not significantly differ from the one estimated using WS.
Topics: Humans; Nursing Care; Patient Care; Salaries and Fringe Benefits; Surveys and Questionnaires; Tertiary Care Centers
PubMed: 35714898
DOI: 10.1016/j.anr.2022.06.001 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Jul 2013
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Patient Care Team; Terminal Care
PubMed: 23297061
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2322-z -
Cancer Epidemiology Apr 2019Sarcomas are rare malignant neoplasms that develop from mesenchymal cells and include a heterogeneous and large group of histological subtypes that may occur at any... (Review)
Review
Sarcomas are rare malignant neoplasms that develop from mesenchymal cells and include a heterogeneous and large group of histological subtypes that may occur at any anatomical site. Soft tissue sarcomas (STS), the focus of this review, account for ≈70‒80% of sarcomas and represent <1% of all cancers. The heterogeneity of STS applies to both their topography and morphology, and 5-year survival can vary widely depending on disease stage and the complex interplay between anatomical site and histology for different STS subtypes. The rarity and heterogeneity of STS, together with other factors, such as the lack of clinical expertise often lead to difficulties and delays in making an accurate diagnosis and to the inappropriate management of each STS subtype. Therefore, this group of cancers requires special attention and approaches to diagnosis and treatment. Epidemiological data on STS are limited, and concerns have been raised regarding accurate registration of STS in cancer registries, including issues related to details of the histotypes. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology of STS in Italy, focusing on data from the Italian Association of Cancer Registries (AIRTUM), and compares findings with those from other European countries. Based on these data, and considering that STS is among the most common group of rare cancers, the relevance of multidisciplinary care for STS patients through reference centres, clinical networks and collaborative disease-specific groups is discussed.
Topics: Humans; Italy; Patient Care; Registries; Sarcoma; Soft Tissue Neoplasms
PubMed: 30870746
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2019.02.012 -
Best Practice & Research. Clinical... Oct 2021In 2019, a novel coronavirus called the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 led to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which was deemed a pandemic... (Review)
Review
In 2019, a novel coronavirus called the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 led to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which was deemed a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Owing to the accelerated rate of mortality and utilization of hospital resources, health care systems had to adapt to these major changes. This affected patient care across all disciplines and specifically within the perioperative services. In this review, we discuss the strategies and pitfalls of how perioperative services in a large academic medical center responded to the initial onset of a pandemic, adjustments made to airway management and anesthesia specialty services - including critical care medicine, obstetric anesthesiology, and cardiac anesthesiology - and strategies for reopening surgical caseload during the pandemic.
Topics: Airway Management; COVID-19; Clinical Decision-Making; Critical Care; Humans; Pandemics; Patient Care
PubMed: 34511233
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpa.2021.02.002 -
Fertility and Sterility Mar 2020Male reproduction is a complex process, and numerous medical conditions have the potential to alter spermatogenesis. In addition, male factor infertility may be a... (Review)
Review
Male reproduction is a complex process, and numerous medical conditions have the potential to alter spermatogenesis. In addition, male factor infertility may be a biomarker for future health. In the present review, we discuss the current literature regarding the association between systemic diseases and fertility, which may impact clinical outcomes or semen parameters. A number of conditions that have systemic consequences were identified, including genetic (e.g., cystic fibrosis, DNA mismatch repair alterations), obesity, psychological stress, exogenous testosterone, and a variety of common medications. As such, the infertility evaluation may offer an opportunity for health counseling beyond the discussion of reproductive goals. Moreover, male infertility has been suggested as a marker of future health, given that poor semen parameters and a diagnosis of male infertility are associated with an increased risk of hypogonadism, cardiometabolic disease, cancer, and even mortality. Therefore, male fertility requires multidisciplinary expertise for evaluation, treatment, and counseling.
Topics: Andrology; Humans; Infertility, Male; Male; Men's Health; Patient Care; Patient Care Planning; Reproductive Medicine
PubMed: 32089256
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.01.002