Dataset Information

The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patient 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. METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:Database 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. CONCLUSION:Five 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 REGISTRATION:This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database of the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (ID: 2015: CRD42015030020 ).

SUBMITTER: Sharma AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5651621 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.

Sharma Anjana E AE Knox Margae M Mleczko Victor L VL Olayiwola J Nwando JN

BMC health services research 20171023 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patient 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. ...[more]

PMID: 29058625

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExtensive 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:For physicians in independent practice, we synthesised evidence on the (1) impacts of insufficient sleep and fatigue on health and performance, and patient safety and (2) effectiveness of interventions targeting insufficient sleep and fatigue. DESIGN:We systematically reviewed online literature. After piloting, one reviewer selected studies by title and abstract; full texts were then reviewed in duplicate. One reviewer extracted data; another verified a random 10% sample. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias. We pooled findings via meta-analysis when appropriate or narratively. DATA SOURCES:We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed for published studies in April 2016; Medline was updated in November 2017. We searched Embase for conference proceedings, and hand-searched meeting abstracts, association and foundation websites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:English or French language primary research studies published from 2000 to 2017 examining the effect of fatigue-related or sleep-related exposures or interventions on any outcome among physicians in independent practice and their patients. RESULTS:Of 16?154 records identified, we included 47 quantitative studies of variable quality. 28 studies showed associations between fatigue or insufficient sleep and physician health and well-being outcomes. 21 studies showed no association with surgical performance, and mixed findings for psychomotor performance, work performance and medical errors. We pooled data from six cohort studies for patient outcomes. For sleep deprived versus non-sleep deprived surgeons, we found no difference in patient mortality (n=60 436, relative risk (RR) 0.98, 95%?CI 0.84 to 1.15, I2=0% (p=0.87)) nor postoperative complications (n=60?201, RR 0.99, 95%?CI 0.95 to 1.03, I2=0% (p=0.45)). The findings for intraoperative complications and length of stay were considerably heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS:Fatigue and insufficient sleep may be associated with negative physician health outcomes. Current evidence is inadequate to inform practice recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundAs healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes.ResultsSixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently.DiscussionPublished articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes.MethodsWe searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool.ResultsFrom 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre-post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions.ConclusionsOverall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation.Prospero registration numberCRD42020148053.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the impact of clinical supervision of post-registration/qualification healthcare professionals on healthcare organisational outcomes.BackgroundClinical supervision is a professional support mechanism that benefits patients, healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations. Whilst evidence is growing on the impact of clinical supervision on patient and healthcare professional outcomes, the evidence base for the impact of clinical supervision on organisational outcomes remains weak.MethodsThis review used a convergent segregated approach to synthesise and integrate quantitative and qualitative research findings, as per the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommendations for mixed methods systematic reviews. Databases searched included CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, PschINFO, and Scopus. Whilst a narrative synthesis was performed to present the findings of the quantitative and qualitative studies, the evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies was subsequently integrated for a combined presentation. The review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.ResultsThirty-two studies including 27 quantitative, two qualitative and three mixed methods studies, were included in the review. The results of the quantitative analysis showed that effective clinical supervision was associated with lower burnout and greater staff retention, and effective supervisor was associated with lower burnout and greater job satisfaction. Qualitative findings showed that healthcare professionals believed that adequate clinical supervision could mitigate the risk of burnout, facilitate staff retention, and improve the work environment, while inadequate clinical supervision can lead to stress and burnout. The evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies were complementary of each other.ConclusionClinical supervision can have a variable effect on healthcare organisational outcomes. The direction of this effect appears to be influenced by the effectiveness of both the clinical supervision provided and that of the clinical supervisor. This highlights the need for organisations to invest in high quality supervision practices if maximal gains from clinical supervision are to be attained.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frameworks used in research impact evaluation studies vary widely and it remains unclear which methods are most appropriate for evaluating research impact in the field of surgical research. Therefore, we aimed to identify and review the methods used to assess the impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare and to identify determinants for surgical impact. METHODS:We searched journal databases up to March 10, 2020 for papers assessing the impact of surgical effectiveness trials on healthcare. Two researchers independently screened the papers for eligibility and performed a Risk of Bias assessment. Characteristics of both impact papers and trial papers were summarized. Univariate analyses were performed to identify determinants for finding research impact, which was defined as a change in healthcare practice. RESULTS:Sixty-one impact assessments were performed in 37 included impact papers. Some surgical trial papers were evaluated in more than one impact paper, which provides a total of 38 evaluated trial papers. Most impact papers were published after 2010 (n = 29). Medical records (n = 10), administrative databases (n = 22), and physician's opinion through surveys (n = 5) were used for data collection. Those data were analyzed purely descriptively (n = 3), comparing data before and after publication (n = 29), or through time series analyses (n = 5). Significant healthcare impact was observed 49 times and more often in more recent publications. Having impact was positively associated with using medical records or administrative databases (ref.: surveys), a longer timeframe for impact evaluation and more months between the publication of the trial paper and the impact paper, data collection in North America (ref.: Europe), no economic evaluation of the intervention, finding no significant difference in surgical outcomes, and suggesting de-implementation in the original trial paper. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Research impact evaluation receives growing interest, but still a small number of impact papers per year was identified. The analysis showed that characteristics of both surgical trial papers and impact papers were associated with finding research impact. We advise to collect data from either medical records or administrative databases, with an evaluation time frame of at least 4 years since trial publication.

Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesAfter registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias method and Drummond's quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization.ResultsAfter reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods.ConclusionAlthough there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work-with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts-is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits.RegistrationPROSPERO registration CRD42012003421.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAI) are one of the gravest threats to patient safety worldwide. The importance of the hospital environment has recently been revalued in infection prevention and control. Though the literature is evolving rapidly, many institutions still do not consider healthcare environmental hygiene (HEH) very important for patient safety. The evidence for interventions in the healthcare environment on patient colonization and HAI with multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) or other epidemiologically relevant pathogens was reviewed.MethodsWe performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All original studies were eligible if published before December 31, 2019, and if the effect of an HEH intervention on HAI or patient colonization was measured. Studies were not eligible if they were conducted in vitro, did not include patient colonization or HAI as an outcome, were bundled with hand hygiene interventions, included a complete structural rebuild of the healthcare facility or were implemented during an outbreak. The primary outcome was the comparison of the intervention on patient colonization or HAI compared to baseline or control. Interventions were categorized by mechanical, chemical, human factors, or bundles. Study quality was assessed using a specifically-designed tool that considered study design, sample size, control, confounders, and issues with reporting. The effect of HEH interventions on environmental bioburden was studied as a secondary outcome.FindingsAfter deduplication, 952 records were scrutinized, of which 44 were included for full text assessment. A total of 26 articles were included in the review and analyzed. Most studies demonstrated a reduction of patient colonization or HAI, and all that analyzed bioburden demonstrated a reduction following the HEH intervention. Studies tested mechanical interventions (n = 8), chemical interventions (n = 7), human factors interventions (n = 3), and bundled interventions (n = 8). The majority of studies (21/26, 81%) analyzed either S. aureus, C. difficile, and/or vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Most studies (23/26, 88%) reported a decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for at least one of the tested organisms, while 58% reported a significant decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for all tested microorganisms. Forty-two percent were of good quality according to the scoring system. The majority (21/26, 81%) of study interventions were recommended for application by the authors. Studies were often not powered adequately to measure statistically significant reductions.InterpretationImproving HEH helps keep patients safe. Most studies demonstrated that interventions in the hospital environment were related with lower HAI and/or patient colonization. Most of the studies were not of high quality; additional adequately-powered, high-quality studies are needed. Systematic registration number: CRD42020204909.

Dataset Information

The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.

Publications

The impact of patient advisors on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets