Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fonhus MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6513263 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.
Fønhus Marita S MS Dalsbø Therese K TK Johansen Marit M Fretheim Atle A Skirbekk Helge H Flottorp Signe A SA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20180911
<h4>Background</h4>Healthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background. Patient involvement interventions are complex interventions that improve patient involvement in treatment and care in health care systems. Studies report several benefits of patient involvement interventions and that health care professionals are positive about using them. However, they have not been explored as a collected group of interventions throughout the continuum of care and treatment. In addition, the relationship between patient involvement interventions and the clinical reasoning process of health care professionals has not been thoroughly studied. Design. This mixed-methods study was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark between April and November 2022 using interview data from 12 health care professionals and survey data from 420 health care professionals. Informants were medical doctors, nurses, midwives, dietitians, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who had direct contact with patients during their daily care and treatment. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed via inductive and deductive content analysis. Results. Communication and interaction were seen as overarching aspects of patient involvement, with patient involvement interventions being defined as concrete tools and methods to enhance health care professionals' explicit clinical reasoning process. Limitations. It is unclear if results are representative of all health care professionals at the hospital or only those with a positive view of patient involvement interventions. Conclusions. Patient involvement interventions are viewed as beneficial for patients and fit with the clinical reasoning of health care professionals. Clinical reasoning may be an active ingredient in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions. Implications. In practice, health care professionals need training in person-centered communication and the ability to articulate their clinical reasoning explicitly. In research, a more in-depth understanding of the interrelations between patient involvement interventions and clinical reasoning is needed.HighlightsCommunication and interaction are the fundamental goals of patient involvement in practice, regardless of which patient involvement intervention is being used.Clinical reasoning is often an unconscious process using tacit knowledge, but the use of patient involvement interventions may be a way for health care professionals (at both individual and group levels) to become more explicit about and aware of their reflections.Clinical reasoning can be viewed as a mechanism of change in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions.
| S-EPMC10868494 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess what is known about the relationship between patient experience measures and incentives designed to improve care, and to identify how public policy and medical practices can promote patient-valued outcomes in health systems with strong financial incentives.Data sources/study settingExisting literature (gray and peer-reviewed) on measuring patient experience and patient-reported outcomes, identified from Medline and Cochrane databases; evaluations of pay-for-performance programs in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries.Study design/data collectionWe analyzed (1) studies of pay-for-performance, to identify those including metrics for patient experience, and (2) studies of patient experience and of patient-reported outcomes to identify evidence of influence on clinical practice, whether through public reporting or private reporting to clinicians.Principal findingsFirst, we identify four forms of "patient-reported information" (PRI), each with distinctive roles shaping clinical practice: (1) patient-reported outcomes measuring self-assessed physical and mental well-being, (2) surveys of patient experience with clinicians and staff, (3) narrative accounts describing encounters with clinicians in patients' own words, and (4) complaints/grievances signaling patients' distress when treatment or outcomes fall short of expectations. Because these forms vary in crucial ways, each must be distinctively measured, deployed, and linked with financial incentives. Second, although the literature linking incentives to patients experience is limited, implementing pay-for-performance systems appears to threaten certain patient-valued aspects of health care. But incentives can be made compatible with the outcomes patients value if: (a) a sufficient portion of incentives is tied to patient-reported outcomes and experiences, (b) incentivized forms of PRI are complemented by other forms of patient feedback, and (c) health care organizations assist clinicians to interpret and respond to PRI. Finally, we identify roles for the public and private sectors in financing PRI and orchestrating an appropriate balance among its four forms.ConclusionsUnless public policies are attentive to patients' perspectives, stronger financial incentives for clinicians can threaten aspects of care that patients most value. Certain policy parameters are already clear, but additional research is required to clarify how best to collect patient narratives in varied settings, how to report narratives to consumers in conjunction with quantified metrics, and how to promote a "culture of learning" at the practice level that incorporates patient feedback.
| S-EPMC5115180 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6923326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings.MethodsHealth care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsWe report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations.ConclusionWe demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.
| S-EPMC2248564 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes.Methods and findingsWe performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars.ConclusionsWe found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.
| S-EPMC1472698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of the European Working Time Directive has meant the introduction of shift patterns of working for junior doctors. Patient handover between shifts has become a necessary part of practice in order to reduce the risk of medical errors. Data handed over between shifts are used to prioritise clinical jobs outstanding, and to create theatre lists. We present a closed-loop audit of handover practice to assess whether standardised proformas improve clinical data transfer between shifts during handover in our Orthopaedic Unit. METHODS:We collected data handed over between shifts for a period of one week at our department. The data were in the form of hand written data on plain paper used to assist verbal handover. Data were analysed and a standardised handover sheet was trialled. After feedback from juniors the sheet was revised and implemented. A re-audit, of handover data, was then undertaken using the revised standardised proforma during a period of 1 week. RESULTS:Forty-eight patients were handed over in week 1 while 55 patients were handed over during re-audit. The standardised proformas encouraged use of pre-printed patient labels which contained legible patient identifiers, use of labels increased from 72.9% to 93.4%. Handover of outstanding jobs increased from 31.25% to 100%. Overall data handed over increased from 72.6% to 93.2%. Handover of relevant blood results showed little improvement from 18.8% to 20.7% CONCLUSION:This audit highlights the issue of data transfer between shifts. Standardised proformas encourage filling of relevant fields and increases the data transferred between shifts thereby reducing the potential for clinical error cause by shift patterns.
| S-EPMC2565654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the best evidence on the effectiveness of technology-based learning tools designed to improve knowledge of health care providers about clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018. Included studies investigated the effectiveness of any technology-based learning tools developed to improve knowledge of health care providers about CPGs. We used a 2-phase screening process to determine eligibility. Pairs of reviewers critically appraised relevant studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist for randomized controlled trials or the National Institutes of Health checklist for pre- and postintervention trials. Evidence from internally valid studies was described using a best-evidence summary. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine whether results varied according to methodological quality.ResultsTwenty-five of 8321 articles met our selection criteria. Six studies had a low risk of bias and were included in this review. Spaced education was associated with improvement in knowledge; however, its effectiveness relative to other interventions is unknown. Module-based online educational interventions were associated with improvement in knowledge of CPGs; however, they may not be more effective than paper-based self-learning or in-person workshops. The sensitivity analysis determined that the evidence was similar between the high and low risk of bias studies.ConclusionModule-based- and spaced-education interventions may be beneficial for improving health care providers' knowledge of CPGs; however, much of the evidence toward their use is preliminary.
| S-EPMC7958655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes.Search strategyFor this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change.Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints.Main resultsWe included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions.Authors' conclusionsInterventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.
| S-EPMC4164371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnxiety disorders are common in general practice and are associated with several problems regarding recognition and management.AimTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving recognition, diagnosis, and management of patients with anxiety disorders.Design of studySystematic review.MethodMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials' Register were searched up until 2003. Randomised controlled trials, controlled before/after trials, and interrupted time series for professional, organisational, financial, and regulatory interventions were eligible. Primary effect measures consisted of anxiety outcomes, diagnosis, prescription, and referral. Two reviewers independently made eligibility judgments: eight out of 563 articles were found to be eligible. Two reviewers participated independently in the quality assessment and data extraction process using a standardised form based on the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care checklist. Relative risks or standardised mean differences were calculated when possible.ResultsFour professional interventions and three organisational interventions were examined. In general, the professional interventions seemed to increase recognition, referral, and prescription as well as improving anxiety outcomes. Two out of three organisational interventions showed a positive effect on anxiety outcomes. The one study that took prescription into account showed no effect.ConclusionsThe quality of care for patients with anxiety can be improved. A combination of professional and organisational interventions in which an external expert is introduced seems to be most promising. Additional research is nevertheless necessary to determine the exact effects of such interventions using patient effect measures, economic evaluations, and feasibility studies.
| S-EPMC1570770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWard rounds are an essential component of surgical and perioperative care. However, the relative effectiveness of different interventions to improve the quality of surgical ward rounds remains uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of various ward round interventions among surgical patients.MethodsA systematic literature search of the MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and PsycInfo databases was performed on 7 October 2022 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All studies investigating surgical ward round quality improvement strategies with measurable outcomes were included. Data were analysed via narrative synthesis based on commonly reported themes.ResultsA total of 28 studies were included. Most were cohort studies (n = 25), followed by randomised controlled trials (n = 3). Checklists/proformas were utilised most commonly (n = 22), followed by technological (n = 3), personnel (n = 2), and well-being (n = 1) quality improvement strategies. The majority of checklist interventions (n = 21, 95%) showed significant improvements in documentation compliance, staff understanding, or patient satisfaction. Other less frequently reported ward round interventions demonstrated improvements in communication, patient safety, and reductions in patient stress levels.ConclusionsUse of checklists, technology, personnel, and well-being improvement strategies have been associated with improvements in ward round documentation, communication, as well as staff and patient satisfaction. Future studies should investigate the ease of implementation and long-term durability of these interventions, in addition to their impact on clinically relevant outcomes such as patient morbidity and mortality.
| S-EPMC10694108 | biostudies-literature