Dataset Information

Impact of physician's sex/gender on processes of care, and clinical outcomes in cardiac operative care: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to assess the role of physician's sex and gender in relation to processes of care and/or clinical outcomes within the context of cardiac operative care.

Design

A systematic review.

Data sources

Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, Embase and Medline from inception to 6 September 2018. The reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included studies were also searched.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Quantitative studies of any design were included if they were published in English or French, involved patients of any age undergoing a cardiac surgical procedure and specifically assessed differences in processes of care or clinical patient outcomes by physician's sex or gender. Studies were screened in duplicate by two pairs of independent reviewers.

Outcome measures

Processes of care, patient morbidity and patient mortality.

Results

The search yielded 2095 publications after duplicate removal, of which two were ultimately included. These studies involved various types of surgery, including cardiac. One study found that patients treated by female surgeons compared with male surgeons had a lower 30-day mortality. The other study, however, found no differences in patient outcomes by surgeon's sex. There were no studies that investigated anaesthesiologist's sex/gender. There were also no studies investing physician's sex or gender exclusively in the cardiac operating room.

Conclusions

The limited data surrounding the impact of physician's sex/gender on the outcomes of cardiac surgery inhibits drawing a robust conclusion at this time. Results highlight the need for primary research to determine how these factors may influence cardiac operative practice, in order to optimise provider's performance and improve outcomes in this high-risk patient group.

SUBMITTER: Etherington N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7526284 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMore than 100 million individuals in the USA have been diagnosed with a chronic disease, yet chronic disease care has remained fragmented and of inconsistent quality. Improving chronic disease management has been challenging for primary care and internal medicine practitioners. Practice facilitation provides a comprehensive approach to chronic disease care. The objective is to evaluate the impact of practice facilitation on chronic disease outcomes in the primary care setting.MethodsThis systematic review examined North American studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (database inception to August 2017). Investigators independently extracted and assessed the quality of the data on chronic disease process and clinical outcome measures. Studies implemented practice facilitation and reported quantifiable care processes and patient outcomes for chronic disease. Each study and their evidence were assessed for risk of bias and quality according to the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grade Collaboration tool.ResultsThis systematic review included 25 studies: 12 randomized control trials and 13 prospective cohort studies. Across all studies, practices and their clinicians were aware of the implementation of practice facilitation. Improvements were observed in most studies for chronic diseases including asthma, cancer (breast, cervical, and colorectal), cardiovascular disease (cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and peripheral vascular disease), and type 2 diabetes. Mixed results were observed for chronic kidney disease and chronic illness care.DiscussionOverall, the results suggest that practice facilitation may improve chronic disease care measures. Across all studies, practices were aware of practice facilitation. These findings lend support for the potential expansion of practice facilitation in primary care. Future work will need to investigate potential opportunities for practice facilitation to improve chronic disease outcomes in other health care settings (e.g., specialty and multi-specialty practices) with standardized measures.