Patient care experience with utilization of isolation precautions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Use of isolation precautions (IP) may represent a trade-off between reduced transmission of infectious pathogens and reduced patient satisfaction with their care.Objective
To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify if and how IPs impact patients' care experiences.Data sources
Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsychInfo, HSRProj and Cochrane Library databases.Study eligibility criteria
Interventional and observational studies published January 1990 to May 2019 were eligible for inclusion.Participants
Patients admitted to an acute-care facility.Interventions
IPs versus no IPs.Methods
Six reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text. Experience of care reported by patients using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey was assessed as the outcome for the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value.Results
After screening 7073 titles and abstracts, 15 independent studies were included in the review. Pooling of unadjusted estimates from the HCAHPS survey demonstrated that IP patients were less likely to give top scores on questions pertaining to respect, communication, receiving assistance and cleanliness compared to the no-IP patients. Patients under IP with longer length of stay appeared to have more negative experiences with the care received during their stay compared to no IP.Conclusions
Patients under IP were more likely to be dissatisfied with several aspects of patient care compared to patients not under IP. It is crucial to educate patients and healthcare workers in order to balance successful implementation of IP and patient care experiences, particularly in healthcare settings where it may be beneficial.
SUBMITTER: Nair R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7253340 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Contact precautions are widely recommended to prevent multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) transmission. However, conflicting data exist regarding their effectiveness. Prior systematic reviews examined contact precautions as part of a larger bundled approach, limiting ability to understand their effectiveness. The aim of this review was to characterize the effectiveness of contact precautions alone against transmission of any MDRO among adult acute care patients. Directed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, comprehensive searches of four electronic scientific literature databases were conducted for studies published in English from January 2004 to June 2014. Studies were included if interventional, original research, evaluating contact isolation precautions against MDRO transmission among inpatients. Searches returned 284 studies, six of which were included in the review. These studies measured four different MDROs with one study showing a reduction in transmission. Whereas studies were of high quality regarding outcome operationalization and statistical analyses, overall quality was moderate to low due to poor intervention description, population characterization and potential biases. Where compliance was measured (N = 4), it presented a threat to validity because it included select parts of the intervention, ranged from 21% to 87%, and was significantly different across study phases (N = 2). The poor quality of evidence on this topic continues to limit interpretation of these data. Hence, this conflicting body of literature does not constitute evidence for or against contact precautions. We recommend that researchers consider power calculation, compliance monitoring, non-equivalent concurrent controls when designing future studies on this topic.
| S-EPMC4486607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere is a growing acceptance of the need for routine implementation of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in health care. Rheumatology patients, as frequent and long-term users of care, stand to benefit from collection of experience-related data. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify and critically appraise the development and psychometric validation of PREMs in rheumatology.MethodsSix databases were searched systematically from inception to 14 December 2020: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Cochrane and Google Scholar. We included articles in English that described the use or development of PREMs, with results of psychometric testing, in an adult outpatient rheumatology context. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021233819). Articles were appraised using the COnsensus Based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) (i) Risk of Bias checklist and (ii) criteria for good measurement properties.ResultsThe search yielded 3809 publications, and six studies met inclusion criteria. All the included studies on PREM development fulfilled COSMIN standards for 'doubtful' or 'inadequate' quality of instrument development. One study fulfilled a 'sufficient' rating for content validity, and the remainder fulfilled 'inconsistent' ratings. During validity testing, studies fulfilled between one and four of the eight COSMIN checklist criteria for good measurement properties.ConclusionMethodological concerns regarding instrument development and validation limit the generalizability of the existing six validated PREMs in use in rheumatology contexts. There is a need for further well-designed studies to validate existing and new PREMs in this area.
| S-EPMC8578687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Patient-reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are validated questionnaires, that gather patients' and families' views of their experience receiving care and are commonly used to measure the quality of care, with the goal to make care more patient and family-centered. PREMs are increasingly being adopted in pediatric population, however knowledge gaps exist around understanding the use of PREMs in pediatrics. Objective: To identify and synthesize evidence on the use of PREMs in pediatric healthcare settings and their characteristics. Evidence Review: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines governed the conduct and reporting of this review. An exhaustive search strategy was applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles from high-income countries. Additionally, gray literature was searched to capture real-world implementation of PREMs. All the articles were screened independently by two reviewers in two steps. Data was extracted independently, synthesized, and tabulated. Findings from gray literature was synthesized and reported separately. Risk of bias for the studies identified through scientific databases was assessed independently by two reviewers using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: The initial search identified 15,457 articles. After removing duplicates, the title and abstracts of 11,543 articles were screened. Seven hundred ten articles were eligible for full-text review. Finally, 83 articles met the criteria and were included in the analyses. Of the 83 includes studies conducted in 14 countries, 48 were conducted in USA, 25 in European countries and 10 in other countries. These 83 studies reported on the use of 39 different PREMs in pediatric healthcare settings. The gray literature retrieved 10 additional PREMs. The number of items in these PREMs ranged from 7 to 89. Twenty-three PREMs were designed to be completed by proxy, 10 by either pediatric patients or family caregivers, and 6 by pediatric patients themselves. Conclusion and Relevance: This comprehensive review is the first to systematically search evidence around the use of PREMs in pediatrics. The findings of this review can guide health administrators and researchers to use appropriate PREMs to implement patient and family-centered care in pediatrics.
| S-EPMC8721567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionReduction of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality has continued to be a challenge in developing countries. The majority of maternal and neonatal mortality occurred during the early postpartum period. This is mostly due to low postnatal care service utilization. There is a discrepancy of evidence on the effect status of antenatal care on the improvement of postnatal care service utilization. Therefore, this review study is aimed at estimating the pooled effect of antenatal care on postnatal care service utilization.MethodsWe searched from PubMed and Cochrane library database, Google Scholar, and Google. Initially, we found 265 articles; after duplication was removed and screened by the relevance of the titles and abstracts, 36 studies were considered for assessment of eligibility. Finally, 14 articles passed the inclusion and exclusion criteria and are included in the meta-analysis. Study quality assessment was done using Janna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. The main information was extracted from each study. Heterogeneity of studies was assessed using I 2 = 70% and more considered having high heterogeneity. The publication bias was checked using funnel plot and big test. Meta-analysis using a random effect model was conducted. A forest plot was used to show the estimated size effect of odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsA total of 14 articles were included with 15,765 participants for synthesis and meta-analysis. We found that a pooled estimate of women who had antenatal care was 1.53 times more likely to have postnatal care compared with those who had no antenatal care (AOR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.38-1.70, I 2 = 0%).ConclusionsThis review results revealed a low utilization of postnatal care service. Antenatal care service utilization has a positive effect on postnatal care service utilization. Policymakers and programmers better considered more antenatal care service use as one strategy of enhancing the utilization of postnatal care service.
| S-EPMC7528140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFungal infection and sensitization are common in chronic respiratory patient populations such as bronchiectasis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cystic fibrosis (CF) and are often associated with prolonged antifungal therapy (Hohmann et al. in Clin Infect Dis 15:939-940, 2010; Vissichelli et al. in Infect Prev Pract 1:100029, 2019), morbidity, and mortality. Although the use of antifungal stewardship (AFS) is increasing within an invasive fungal disease setting, its use and impact within a chronic respiratory setting have not been defined.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the use of antifungal stewardship within a chronic respiratory care setting. Three databases have been searched, Medline via Ovid, Embase and GlobalHealth, for papers published between 1949 and 2020.ResultsThe initial search identified 987 papers from Medline, 1761 papers from Embase, and 481 papers from GlobalHealth. Only 28 papers met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic literature review. The included studies were subjected to CASP and GRADE assessments to rank their quality and applicability. Only two studies were focussed on Aspergillus species infection.ConclusionAlthough antifungal stewardship is increasing, its applications are still limited in chronic respiratory care settings despite the prolonged requirement for antifungal therapy and high antimicrobial resistance.
| S-EPMC8536614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDelivering improvements in quality is a key objective within most healthcare systems, and a view which has been widely embraced within the NHS in the United Kingdom. Within the NHS, quality is evaluated across three key dimensions: clinical effectiveness, safety and patient experience, with the latter modelled on the Picker Principles of Patient-Centred Care (PCC). Quality improvement is an important feature of the current dental contract reforms in England, with "patient experience" likely to have a central role in the evaluation of quality. An understanding and appreciation of the evidence underpinning PCC within dentistry is highly relevant if we are to use this as a measure of quality in general dental practice.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify the features of PCC relevant to dentistry and ascertain the current research evidence base underpinning its use as a measure of quality within general dental practice.ResultsThree papers were identified which met the inclusion criteria and demonstrated the use of primary research to provide an understanding of the key features of PCC within dentistry. None of the papers identified were based in general dental practice and none of the three studies sought the views of patients. Some distinct differences were noted between the key features of PCC reported within the dental literature and those developed within the NHS Patient Experience Framework.ConclusionsThis systematic review reveals a lack of understanding of PCC within dentistry, and in particular general dental practice. There is currently a poor evidence base to support the use of the current patient reported outcome measures as indicators of patient-centredness. Further research is necessary to understand the important features of PCC in dentistry and patients' views should be central to this research.
| S-EPMC4054911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Too few patients utilize cardiac rehabilitation (CR), despite its benefits. The Cochrane review assessing the effectiveness of interventions to increase CR utilization (enrolment, adherence, and completion) was updated. A search was performed through July 2018 of the Cochrane and MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) databases, among other sources. Randomized controlled trials in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, revascularization, or heart failure were included. Interventions had to aim to increase utilization of comprehensive phase II CR. Two authors independently performed all stages of citation processing. Following the random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression was undertaken to explore the impact of pre-specified factors. Twenty-six trials with 5299 participants were included (35.8% women). Low-quality evidence showed an effect of interventions in increasing enrolment (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.13⁻1.42). Meta-regression analyses suggested that the intervention deliverer (nurse or allied healthcare provider, p = 0.02) and delivery format (face-to-face, p = 0.01) were influential in increasing enrolment. There was low-quality evidence that interventions to increase adherence were effective (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20⁻0.55), particularly where remotely-offered (SMD = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.36⁻0.76). There was moderate-quality evidence that interventions to increase program completion were effective (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02⁻1.25). There are effective interventions to increase CR utilization, but more research is needed to establish specific, implementable materials and protocols, particularly for completion.
| S-EPMC6406265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.
| S-EPMC5707820 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHealth and care services are becoming increasingly strained and healthcare authorities worldwide are investing in integrated care in the hope of delivering higher-quality services while containing costs. The cost-effectiveness of integrated care, however, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to appraise current economic evaluations of integrated care and assesses the impact on outcomes and costs.MethodsCINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, Medline/PubMed, NHS EED, OECD Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and WHOLIS databases from inception to 31 December 2019 were searched to identify studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of integrated care. Study quality was assessed using an adapted CHEERS checklist and used as weight in a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate mean cost and mean outcomes of integrated care.ResultsSelected studies achieved a relatively low average quality score of 65.0% (± 18.7%). Overall meta-analyses from 34 studies showed a significant decrease in costs (0.94; CI 0.90-0.99) and a statistically significant improvement in outcomes (1.06; CI 1.05-1.08) associated with integrated care compared to the control. There is substantial heterogeneity in both costs and outcomes across subgroups. Results were significant in studies lasting over 12 months (12 studies), with both a decrease in cost (0.87; CI 0.80-0.94) and improvement in outcomes (1.15; 95% CI 1.11-1.18) for integrated care interventions; whereas, these associations were not significant in studies with follow-up less than a year.ConclusionOur findings suggest that integrated care is likely to reduce cost and improve outcome. However, existing evidence varies largely and is of moderate quality. Future economic evaluation should target methodological issues to aid policy decisions with more robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of integrated care.
| S-EPMC7561551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis affected 2.7 million people in India in 2017. The Revised National TB Control Programme has achieved milestones in coverage, however quality of TB care remains highly variable and often poor, with significant gaps in provider knowledge, practices, and patients consistently lost to follow-up. These quality gaps are largely informed by studies on provider practices or objective chart abstractions and case data. Per the knowledge of the author, no review has been conducted on first-hand patient perspectives on the quality of TB care they receive. This mixed-methods literature review aims to synthesize evidence on user-experience and patient satisfaction with TB care in India and inform areas for service quality improvement.MethodsFive medical databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for empirical studies on patient perspectives on TB health services published between January 1st, 2000 to December 31st, 2017. Studies in English with adult patients with any form of TB in the public or private health system were included. Studies prior to entering the health system, on distance to health facilities and cost were excluded. Seven Indian journals were hand searched and a grey literature search was conducted in GoogleScholar. Studies were assessed for methodological quality and thematic analysis was conducted by categorizing data using NVivo 12.ResultsA total of 498 studies were screened, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria. 16 supplementary studies were identified from Indian journals and grey literature. Of the 39 total studies included most were quantitative (29; 74%), based in South India (17; 44%) and focused on drug-sensitive TB patients (19; 49%) within the public health system (25; 64%). Data collection methods were highly heterogenous which limited synthesis and comparisons across population demographics, health sectors, or regions. Overall quantitative patient satisfaction measured in seven studies was high. Two major themes identified were provider-related factors (n = 26 studies) and convenience (n = 25), and six minor themes were supplies and equipment availability (n = 12), confidence (n = 10), information and communication (n = 10), waiting time (n = 8), stigma (n = 4), and confidentiality (n = 4). Each reported positive and negative user-experiences. Most significantly, DOTS did not fit the daily needs and obligations of many patients, particularly due to conflicts with employment and frequency of visits; while positive provider support, information, and flexibility helped patients adhere to treatment.ConclusionAlthough quantitative patient satisfaction was found to be high, data were not collected using robust, validated tools. Qualitative and quantitative user-experiences in each theme were variable, making them both barriers and facilitators of good quality TB care. Poor user-experiences were often responsible for patients interrupting treatment or dropping out of TB care. Patient-centeredness, or user-friendliness of TB care can be improved by introducing individualized or flexible DOTS that is responsive to user circumstances and needs. User-experience data should be systematically collected using a standardized, national tool for identification of specific bottlenecks and successes in quality of TB care from the patients' perspective.
| S-EPMC6880015 | biostudies-literature