Patient outcomes with teaching versus nonteaching healthcare: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Extensive debate exists in the healthcare community over whether outcomes of medical care at teaching hospitals and other healthcare units are better or worse than those at the respective nonteaching ones. Thus, our goal was to systematically evaluate the evidence pertaining to this question.Methods and findings
We reviewed all studies that compared teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures for mortality or any other patient outcome, regardless of health condition. Studies were retrieved from PubMed, contact with experts, and literature cross-referencing. Data were extracted on setting, patients, data sources, author affiliations, definition of compared groups, types of diagnoses considered, adjusting covariates, and estimates of effect for mortality and for each other outcome. Overall, 132 eligible studies were identified, including 93 on mortality and 61 on other eligible outcomes (22 addressed both). Synthesis of the available adjusted estimates on mortality yielded a summary relative risk of 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.00) for teaching versus nonteaching healthcare structures and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.99-1.10) for minor teaching versus nonteaching ones. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 72% for the main analysis). Results were similar in studies using clinical and those using administrative databases. No differences were seen in the 14 studies fully adjusting for volume/experience, severity, and comorbidity (relative risk 1.01). Smaller studies did not differ in their results from larger studies. Differences were seen for some diagnoses (e.g., significantly better survival for breast cancer and cerebrovascular accidents in teaching hospitals and significantly better survival from cholecystectomy in nonteaching hospitals), but these were small in magnitude. Other outcomes were diverse, but typically teaching healthcare structures did not do better than nonteaching ones.Conclusions
The available data are limited by their nonrandomized design, but overall they do not suggest that a healthcare facility's teaching status on its own markedly improves or worsens patient outcomes. Differences for specific diseases cannot be excluded, but are likely to be small.
SUBMITTER: Papanikolaou PN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1564172 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPatient advisory councils are a way for healthcare organizations to promote patient engagement. Despite mandates to implement patient advisory councils through programs like the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), there is a paucity of data measuring the impact of patients functioning in advisory roles. Our objective is to investigate whether patient engagement in patient advisory councils is linked to improvements in clinical quality, patient safety or patient satisfaction.MethodsWe searched PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL and Google Scholar for English language publications between November 2002 to August 2015, using a combination of "patient advisor" and "care outcomes" search terms. Article selection utilized dual screening facilitated by DistillerSR software, with group discussion to resolve discordance. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and case studies were included that described patients serving in an advisory role where primary outcomes were mentioned. Reference lists of included studies and grey literature searches were conducted. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed to synthesize results.ResultsDatabase searching yielded 639 articles total after removing duplicates, with 129 articles meeting full text inclusion criteria. 32 articles were identified for final review, 16 of which were case studies. Advisory roles included patient advisory councils, ad-hoc patient committees, community advisory councils, experience-based co-design, and other. Four practice-based studies from one research group, involving community advisors in the design of public health interventions, found improved clinical outcomes. No prospective experimental studies assessed the impact of patient advisors on patient safety or patient satisfaction. One cluster-randomized RCT showed that patient advisors helped health care planning efforts identify priorities more aligned with the PCMH. Ten case studies reported anecdotal benefit to individual patient advisors.ConclusionFive included studies demonstrate promising methods for evaluating patient engagement in healthcare delivery and describe impacts on clinical outcomes and priority setting. Based on the case studies found, patient advisors tend to contribute to patient-facing services that may affect clinical care but are not easily evaluated. As clinics and hospitals implement patient advisory councils, rigorous evaluation of their programs is needed to support the expansion of system-level patient engagement.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database of the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ID: 2015: CRD42015030020 ).
| S-EPMC5651621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of providing patients access to their medical records (electronic or paper-based) on healthcare quality, as defined by measures of safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity.MethodsArticles indexed in PubMed from January 1970 to January 2012 were reviewed. Twenty-seven English-language controlled studies were included. Outcomes were categorized as measures of effectiveness (n=19), patient-centeredness (n=16), and efficiency (n=2); no study addressed safety, timeliness, or equity.ResultsOutcomes were equivocal with respect to several aspects of effectiveness and patient-centeredness. Efficiency outcomes in terms of frequency of in-person and telephone encounters were mixed. Access to health records appeared to enhance patients' perceptions of control and reduced or had no effect on patient anxiety.ConclusionAlthough few positive findings generally favored patient access, the literature is unclear on whether providing patients access to their medical records improves quality.
| S-EPMC4078277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Demonstrated improvements in patient outcomes will facilitate the clinical implementation of pharmacogenetic testing. Using the association between solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) and statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMSs) as a model, we conducted a systematic review of patient outcomes after delivery of SLCO1B1 results. Using PubMed and Embase searches through December 19, 2017, we identified 37 eligible records reporting preliminary or final outcomes, including six studies delivering only SLCO1B1 results and five large healthcare system-based implementation projects of multipharmacogene panels. Two small trials have demonstrated at least short-term improvements in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol after SLCO1B1 testing among previously statin intolerant patients. Evidence from large implementation projects suggests that SLCO1B1 results may change prescribing patterns for some high-risk patients. No study has reported improvements in SAMSs or cardiovascular events or tracked the economic outcomes of SLCO1B1 testing. Ongoing studies should collect and report outcomes relevant to pharmacogenetics stakeholders.
| S-EPMC8083115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.DesignSystematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.Results60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (-1.20 days (95% confidence interval -1.67 to -0.73), -1.43 (-1.53 to -1.33), and -1.73 (-2.30 to -1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (mean difference -0.58 (-0.88 to -0.27) and -0.32 (-0.48 to -0.15), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).ConclusionsTKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO number CRD42018089972.
| S-EPMC6383371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this review was to summarize literature in view of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for glaucoma and provide guidance on how outcomes are best assessed based on evidence about their content and validity. A systematic literature review was performed on papers describing the developmental process and/or psychometric properties of glaucoma or vision-specific PRO-instruments. Each of them was assessed on their adherence to a framework of quality criteria. Fifty-three articles were identified addressing 27 PRO-instruments. In all, 18 PRO's were developed for glaucoma and 9 for diverse ophthalmologic conditions. Seven instruments addressed functional status, 11 instruments quality of life and 9 instruments disease and treatment-related factors. Most of the instruments demonstrated only partially adherence to predefined quality standards. The tools for assessing functional status were of poor quality, while the Glaucoma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Vision Quality of Life Index were well-developed QoL measures, yet only validated using classical techniques. The Rasch-scaled QoL-tools, IVI and VCM1 need to improve their item-content for glaucoma patients. The questionnaires to measure adherence should improve their validity and the Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intra Ocular Pressure pops out as the highest quality tool for measuring topical treatment side effects. This review revealed that most PRO-instruments demonstrated poor developmental quality, more specifically a lack of conceptual framework and item generation strategies not involving the patients' perspective. Psychometric characteristics were mostly tested using classical validation techniques.
| S-EPMC3171264 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWith the advent of electronic health record (EHR) systems, there is increasing attention on the EHR system with regard to its use in facilitating patients to play active roles in their care via secure patient portals. However, there is no systematic review to comprehensively address patient portal interventions and patient outcomes.ObjectiveThis study aimed to synthesize evidence with regard to the characteristics and psychobehavioral and clinical outcomes of patient portal interventions.MethodsIn November 2018, we conducted searches in 3 electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and a total of 24 articles met the eligibility criteria.ResultsAll but 3 studies were conducted in the United States. The types of study designs varied, and samples predominantly involved non-Hispanic white and highly educated patients with sizes ranging from 50 to 22,703. Most of the portal interventions used tailored alerts or educational resources tailored to the patient's condition. Patient portal interventions lead to improvements in a wide range of psychobehavioral outcomes, such as health knowledge, self-efficacy, decision making, medication adherence, and preventive service use. Effects of patient portal interventions on clinical outcomes including blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and weight loss were mixed.ConclusionsPatient portal interventions were overall effective in improving a few psychological outcomes, medication adherence, and preventive service use. There was insufficient evidence to support the use of patient portals to improve clinical outcomes. Understanding the role of patient portals as an effective intervention strategy is an essential step to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their health care.
| S-EPMC6940868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evaluating the patient impact of health professions education is a societal priority with many challenges. Researchers would benefit from a summary of topics studied and potential methodological problems. We sought to summarize key information on patient outcomes identified in a comprehensive systematic review of simulation-based instruction.Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, key journals, and bibliographies of previous reviews through May 2011.Original research in any language measuring the direct effects on patients of simulation-based instruction for health professionals, in comparison with no intervention or other instruction.Two reviewers independently abstracted information on learners, topics, study quality including unit of analysis, and validity evidence. We pooled outcomes using random effects.From 10,903 articles screened, we identified 50 studies reporting patient outcomes for at least 3,221 trainees and 16,742 patients. Clinical topics included airway management (14 studies), gastrointestinal endoscopy (12), and central venous catheter insertion (8). There were 31 studies involving postgraduate physicians and seven studies each involving practicing physicians, nurses, and emergency medicine technicians. Fourteen studies (28 %) used an appropriate unit of analysis. Measurement validity was supported in seven studies reporting content evidence, three reporting internal structure, and three reporting relations with other variables. The pooled Hedges' g effect size for 33 comparisons with no intervention was 0.47 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.63); and for nine comparisons with non-simulation instruction, it was 0.36 (95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.78).Focused field in education; high inconsistency (I(2)?>?50 % in most analyses).Simulation-based education was associated with small-moderate patient benefits in comparison with no intervention and non-simulation instruction, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Unit of analysis errors were common, and validity evidence was infrequently reported.
| S-EPMC3710391 | biostudies-other
Project description:Radiation dermatitis is a common adverse effect of radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients. Although radiation dermatitis is reported by either the clinician or the patient, previous studies have shown disagreement between clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review evaluated the extent of discordance between CROs and PROs for radiation dermatitis. Studies reporting both clinician and patient-reported outcomes for external beam RT were eligible. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, while 8 of these studies were eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis of acute and late skin toxicities. We found an overall agreement between CROs and PROs of acute skin colour change, fibrosis and/or retraction, and moist desquamation (p > 0.005). Reporting of late breast pain, breast edema, skin colour change, telangiectasia, fibrosis and/or retraction and induration/fibrosis alone (p > 0.005) were also in agreement between clinicians and patients. Our meta-analysis revealed a greater reporting of acute breast pain by patients (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.92, p < 0.001), greater reporting of acute breast edema by physicians (RR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.65-1.97, p < 0.001) and a greater reporting of late breast shrinkage by patients (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005). However, our review was limited by the discrepancies between PRO and CRO measurement tools as well as the absence of standard time points for evaluation of radiation dermatitis. Given potential discrepancies between CROs and PROs, both measures should be reported in future studies. Ultimately, we advocate for the development of a single tool to assess symptoms from both perspectives.
| S-EPMC7375608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether there is an association between healthcare professionals' wellbeing and burnout, with patient safety.DesignSystematic research review.Data sourcesPsychInfo (1806 to July 2015), Medline (1946 to July 2015), Embase (1947 to July 2015) and Scopus (1823 to July 2015) were searched, along with reference lists of eligible articles.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesQuantitative, empirical studies that included i) either a measure of wellbeing or burnout, and ii) patient safety, in healthcare staff populations.ResultsForty-six studies were identified. Sixteen out of the 27 studies that measured wellbeing found a significant correlation between poor wellbeing and worse patient safety, with six additional studies finding an association with some but not all scales used, and one study finding a significant association but in the opposite direction to the majority of studies. Twenty-one out of the 30 studies that measured burnout found a significant association between burnout and patient safety, whilst a further four studies found an association between one or more (but not all) subscales of the burnout measures employed, and patient safety.ConclusionsPoor wellbeing and moderate to high levels of burnout are associated, in the majority of studies reviewed, with poor patient safety outcomes such as medical errors, however the lack of prospective studies reduces the ability to determine causality. Further prospective studies, research in primary care, conducted within the UK, and a clearer definition of healthcare staff wellbeing are needed.ImplicationsThis review illustrates the need for healthcare organisations to consider improving employees' mental health as well as creating safer work environments when planning interventions to improve patient safety.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42015023340.
| S-EPMC4938539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background In healthcare, analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an aggregated level can improve and regulate healthcare for specific patient populations (meso level). This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to summarize and describe the effectiveness of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs. Additionally, it aimed to describe barriers, facilitators and lessons learned when using these quality improvement methods. Methods A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that described, implemented or evaluated a quality improvement method based on aggregated PROMs in the curative hospital setting. Quality assessment was conducted via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative data were synthesized into a narrative summary of the characteristics and findings. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic synthesis was conducted. Results From 2360 unique search records, 13 quantitative and three qualitative studies were included. Four quality improvement methods were identified: benchmarking, plan-do-study-act cycle, dashboards and internal statistical analysis. Five studies reported on the effectiveness of the use of aggregated PROMs, of which four identified no effect and one a positive effect. The qualitative analysis identified the following themes for facilitators and barriers: (1) conceptual (i.e. stakeholders, subjectivity of PROMs, aligning PROMs with clinical data, PROMs versus patient-reported experience measures [PREMs]); (2a) methodological—data collection (i.e. choice, timing, response rate and focus); (2b) methodological—data processing (i.e. representativeness, responsibility, case-mix control, interpretation); (3) practical (i.e. resources). Conclusion The results showed little to no effect of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs, but more empirical research is needed to investigate different quality improvement methods. A shared stakeholder vision, selection of PROMs, timing of measurement and feedback, information on interpretation of data, reduction of missing data, and resources for data collection and feedback infrastructure are important to consider when implementing and evaluating quality improvement methods in future research. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00893-4. Key messages What is already known on this topic The aggregated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used for analytical and organizational aspects of improving and regulating healthcare, but there is little empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of aggregated PROMS. What this study adds This study adds a detailed overview of the types of quality improvement methods and recommendations for implementation in practice. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Researchers and policy-makers should consider the barriers, facilitators and lessons learned for future implementation and evaluation of quality improvement methods, as presented in this manuscript, to further advance this field. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00893-4.
| S-EPMC9387033 | biostudies-literature