Dataset Information

Networked information technologies and patient safety: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a widespread belief that information technologies will improve diagnosis, treatment and care. Evidence about their effectiveness in health care is, however, mixed. It is not clear why this is the case, given the remarkable advances in hardware and software over the last 20?years. This review focuses on interoperable information technologies, which governments are currently advocating and funding. These link organisations across a health economy, with a view to enabling health and care professionals to coordinate their work with one another and to access patient data wherever it is stored. Given the mixed evidence about information technologies in general, and current policies and funding, there is a need to establish the value of investments in this class of system. The aim of this review is to establish how, why and in what circumstances interoperable systems affect patient safety.

Methods

A realist synthesis will be undertaken, to understand how and why inter-organisational systems reduce patients' clinical risks, or fail to do so. The review will follow the steps in most published realist syntheses, including (1) clarifying the scope of the review and identifying candidate programme and mid-range theories to evaluate, (2) searching for evidence, (3) appraising primary studies in terms of their rigour and relevance and extracting evidence, (4) synthesising evidence, (5) identifying recommendations, based on assessment of the extent to which findings can be generalised to other settings.

Discussion

The findings of this realist synthesis will shed light on how and why an important class of systems, that span organisations in a health economy, will contribute to changes in patients' clinical risks. We anticipate that the findings will be generalizable, in two ways. First, a refined mid-range theory will contribute to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms that, for a range of information technologies, lead to changes in clinical practices and hence patients' risks (or not). Second, many governments are funding and implementing cross-organisational IT networks. The findings can inform policies on their design and implementation.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42017073004.

SUBMITTER: Keen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6896666 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Networked information technologies and patient safety: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

Keen Justin J Greenhalgh Joanne J Randell Rebecca R Gardner Peter P Waring Justin J Longo Roberta R Fistein Jon J Abdulwahid Maysam M King Natalie N Wright Judy J

Systematic reviews 20191205 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is a widespread belief that information technologies will improve diagnosis, treatment and care. Evidence about their effectiveness in health care is, however, mixed. It is not clear why this is the case, given the remarkable advances in hardware and software over the last 20 years. This review focuses on interoperable information technologies, which governments are currently advocating and funding. These link organisations across a health economy, with a view to enablin ...[more]

PMID: 31806015

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveHealth services in many countries are investing in interorganisational networks, linking patients' records held in different organisations across a city or region. The aim of the systematic review was to establish how, why and in what circumstances these networks improve patient safety, fail to do so, or increase safety risks, for people living at home.DesignRealist synthesis, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative evidence, and including consultation with stakeholders in nominal groups and semistructured interviews.Eligibility criteriaThe coordination of services for older people living at home, and medicine reconciliation for older patients returning home from hospital.Information sources17 sources including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts.OutcomesChanges in patients' clinical risks.ResultsWe did not find any detailed accounts of the sequences of events that policymakers and others believe will lead from the deployment of interoperable networks to improved patient safety. We were, though, able to identify a substantial number of theory fragments, and these were used to develop programme theories.There is good evidence that there are problems with the coordination of services in general, and the reconciliation of medication lists in particular, and it indicates that most problems are social and organisational in nature. There is also good evidence that doctors and other professionals find interoperable networks difficult to use. There was limited high-quality evidence about safety-related outcomes associated with the deployment of interoperable networks.ConclusionsEmpirical evidence does not currently justify claims about the beneficial effects of interoperable networks on patient safety. There appears to be a mismatch between technology-driven assumptions about the effects of networks and the sociotechnical nature of coordination problems.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073004.

Project description:IntroductionUnderperformance by doctors poses a risk to patient safety. Remediation is an intervention designed to remedy underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Remediation is widely used across healthcare systems globally, and has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention. Yet, there is a poor evidence base to inform remediation programmes. In particular, there is a lack of understanding as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor's practice. The aim of this research is to identify why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to support patient safety.Methods and analysisRealist review is an approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention works to produce its effects. The initial search strategy will involve: database and grey literature searching, citation searching and contacting authors. The evidence search will be extended as the review progresses and becomes more focused on the development of specific aspects of the programme theory. The development of the programme theory will involve input from a stakeholder group consisting of professional experts in the remediation process and patient representatives. Evidence synthesis will use a realist logic of analysis to interrogate data in order to develop and refine the initial programme theory into a more definitive realist programme theory of how remediation works. The study will follow and be reported according to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses-Evolving Standards (RAMESES).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Our dissemination strategy will include input from our stakeholder group. Customised outputs will be developed using the knowledge-to-action cycle framework, and will be targeted to: policy-makers; education providers and regulators, the National Health Service, doctors and academics.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088779.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of routine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to influence the care of individual patients with stroke. However, there are significant gaps in our understanding as to how PROMs influence post-stroke patient care and clinical practice. This is due to factors including the number of purported uses for PROMs and that PROMs are complex interventions, which attempt to stimulate varied actions or behaviours. Therefore, the objective of this realist synthesis is to offer theory-based explanations as to how PROMs influence post-stroke clinical practice and patient care.MethodsThis is a protocol for a realist synthesis, which involves three distinct phases: theory building (phase 1), theory testing and refinement (phase 2) and synthesis (phase 3). Phase 1 will develop initial rough programme theories (IRPTs), through literature searches (from January 2000 onwards) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the grey literature. Only secondary sources will be included that contribute to the development of IRPTs. Only two IRPTs, prioritised by the stakeholder group, will be taken forward to be tested and refined during phase 2. Further novel searches will be employed in phase 2, utilising the same criteria as phase 1; however, phase 2 searches will not utilise grey literature searches, and only primary research studies that contribute to the refinement of programme theories under investigation will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen and select all returned results. The reviewers will code and annotate relevant sources, resulting in 'fragments' to be extracted and graded based on the richness of their contribution to explanation and causal insight. Further, these fragments will be organised into 'Context-Mechanism-Outcome' configurations. Phase 3 of the review will involve the synthesis of context-mechanism-outcome configurations to form middle-range theory-based explanations and developed logic models for stakeholders to understand how PROMs in post-stroke clinical practice and patient care work for whom, how and under what circumstances.DiscussionThe resulting realist synthesis will provide guidance on the implementation of PROMs within routine post-stroke clinical practice and patient care and act as a touchstone for further testing and refinement of PROMs programmes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020138649 .

Project description:BackgroundPatients are increasingly being asked for feedback about their healthcare and treatment, including safety, despite little evidence to support this trend. This review identifies the strategies used to engage patients in safety during direct care, explores who is engaged and determines the mechanisms that impact effectiveness.MethodsA systematic review was performed of seven databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Cochrane-Central, Embase, ISI Web of Science, Medline, PsycINFO) that included research published between 2010 and 2020 focused on patient engagement interventions to increase safety during direct care and reported using PRISMA. All research designs were eligible; two reviewers applied criteria independently to determine eligibility and quality. A narrative review and realist synthesis were conducted.ResultsTwenty-six papers reporting on twenty-seven patient engagement strategies were included and classified as consultation (9), involvement (7) and partnership (11). The definitions of 'patient engagement' varied, and we found limited details about participant characteristics or interactions between people utilizing strategies. Collaborative strategy development, a user-friendly design, proactive messaging and agency sponsorship were identified as mechanisms to improve engagement about safety at the point of direct care.ConclusionsAgency sponsorship of collaboration between staff and patients is essential in the development and implementation of strategies to keep patients safe during direct care. Insufficient details about participant characteristics and patient-provider interactions limit recommendations for practice change. More needs to be learned about how patients are engaged in discussions about safety, particularly minority groups unable to engage with standard information.Patient or public contributionReview progress was reported to the CanEngage team, including the consumer steering group, to inform project priorities (PROSPERO CRD42020196453).

Project description:IntroductionPeople are increasingly mobile for numerous reasons, including healthcare. Patient mobility has vast implications for individuals, communities and whole populations and yet, to date, research on patient mobility has been quite limited. Only a small body of evidence exists on patient mobility between low-income and middle-income countries, instead having focused primarily on cross-border movement between high-income and low-income countries. In this paper, we present a protocol for examining this under-studied phenomenon.Methods and analysisWe propose to examine patient mobility between low-income and middle-income countries using a realist synthesis approach. Specifically, we aim to document why patients from low-income and middle-income countries cross international borders for healthcare, by identifying the mechanisms through which patients decide to cross-borders, and the contextual characteristics of domestic health markets that influence this choice. An underlying theory was established, based on the lead author's experience and a brief literature review, which will provide the basis to analyse search results in a subsequent paper. Search results will be obtained from databases (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, EconLit, Web of Science) and the grey literature. An expert committee will be enlisted, prior to screening results, to review search results to ensure comprehensiveness. Based on this preliminary theory, we propose that, in some low-income and middle-income country markets, the interaction between demand-side and supply-side determinants results in market imperfections that, in turn, lead to patient movement across borders.Ethics and disseminationThe study does not involve primary research and, therefore, does not require formal ethical approval; we do, however, follow the relevant standards of utility, usefulness, feasibility, propriety, accuracy and accountability. The standards of realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis (RAMESES) will be adhered to in reporting the findings of the review. Once completed, the findings of the resulting manuscript will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberThis protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42014014391.

Project description:IntroductionEfficient communication and coordination between countries is needed for prevention, detection and response to international food safety events. While communication tools exist, current evidence suggests that they are only effective within certain contexts and only cover certain geographic areas. There is a need to unpack and explore the mechanisms of how and in what context such communication tools and their components are effective at facilitating international communication and coordination to keep food safe and mitigate the burden of foodborne disease around the globe.Methods and analysisA realist synthesis will be undertaken to understand how and why certain processes and structures of communication tools, used during international food safety events, influence their utility and effectiveness according to different contextual factors. The focus of this review is explanatory and aims to develop and refine theory regarding how contextual factors trigger specific processes and mechanisms to produce outcomes. Using the realist context-mechanism-outcome configuration of theory development, a range of sources have been used to develop the initial programme theory, including the author's experience, a scoping review of published papers and grey literature and input from an expert reference committee. To support, expand or refute the initial theory, data will be synthesised from published literature and input from the expert reference committee.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review as it does not involve primary research. However, it will be conducted according to the appropriate ethical standards of accuracy, utility, usefulness, accountability, feasibility and propriety. The RAMESES publication standards will be followed to report the findings of this review. On completion, the final manuscript will be shared with members of the FAO/WHO International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Project description:BackgroundThe routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.MethodsA realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsOverall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.ConclusionsThe key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Dataset Information

Networked information technologies and patient safety: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Networked information technologies and patient safety: a protocol for a realist synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets