Dataset Information

A scoping Review of tools used to assess patient Complexity in rheumatic disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Patients with rheumatic diseases often have multiple comorbidities which may impact well-being leading to high psychosocial complexity. This scoping review was undertaken to identify complexity measures/tools used in rheumatology that could help in planning and coordinating care.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from database inception to 14 December 2019 using keywords and Medical Subject Headings for "care coordination", "complexity" and selected rheumatic diseases and known complexity measures/tools. Articles describing the development or use of complexity measures/tools in patients with adult rheumatologic diagnoses were included regardless of study design. Included articles were evaluated for risk of bias where applicable.

Results

The search yielded 407 articles, 37 underwent full-text review and 2 were identified during a hand search with 9 included articles. Only 2 complexity tools used in populations of adult patients with rheumatic disease were identified: the SLENQ and the INTERMED. The SLENQ is a 97-item patient needs questionnaire developed for patients with systemic lupus (n = 1 study describing tool development) and applied in 5 cross-sectional studies. Three studies (a practice article, trial and a cross-sectional study) applied the INTERMED, a clinical interview to ascertain complexity and support coordinated care, in patients with rheumatologic diagnoses.

Conclusions

There is limited information on the use of patient complexity measures/tools in rheumatology. Such tools could be applied to coordinate multidisciplinary care and improve patient experience and outcomes.

Patient contribution

This scoping review will be presented to patient research partners involved in co-designing a future study on patient complexity in rheumatic disease.

SUBMITTER: Hawker K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077158 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe social determinants of health have been gaining recognition, confirming that multidimensional biopsychosocial assessment is essential to improving the health of individuals. This trend has led to the development of conceptual models and measurement tools assessing 'patient complexity', understood as a complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of care; however, the variety of meanings encompassed by the term has led to confusion in the interpretation of patient complexity such that there is no consensus regarding the definition or conceptualisation of patient complexity. The primary objective of this scoping review is to identify and map what is known about the key characteristics of patient complexity through multiple database searches.Methods and analysisThis study will follow an established framework for conducting scoping reviews. The data will be extracted through searches of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Included articles will have: investigated participants aged 19 years or older, with any health condition; described patient complexity, a model for patient complexity, or a measurement tool for patient complexity; and been published in English from 1 January 1970 to April 2022. Article selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers and if necessary for consensus, a third reviewer. A descriptive summary will be prepared to explain how the results apply to the scoping review questions. The findings will be a detailed mapping of the health dimensions that emerge from the classification of the extracted data. Subsequently, a definition of patient complexity will be developed.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval, as we will use publicly available data. The study findings will be disseminated through a relevant conference presentation and a peer-reviewed journal. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/hpa3c).

Project description:BACKGROUND:A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. METHODS:We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. RESULTS:We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). CONCLUSION:Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

Project description:BackgroundHistorically, efforts to improved healthcare provisions have focussed on learning from and understanding what went wrong during adverse events. More recently, however, there has been a growing interest in seeking to improve healthcare quality through promoting and strengthening resilience in healthcare, in light of the range of changes and challenges to which healthcare providers are subjected. So far, several approaches for strengthening resilience performance have been suggested, such as reflection and simulation. However, there is a lack of studies that appraise the range of existing learning tools, the purposes for which they are designed, and the types of learning activities they comprise. The aim of this rapid scoping review is to identify the characteristics of currently available learning tools designed to translate organizational resilience into healthcare practice.MethodsA rapid scoping review approach was used to identify, collect, and synthesise information describing the characteristics of currently available learning tools designed to translate organizational resilience into healthcare practice. EMBASE and Medline Ovid were searched in May 2022 for articles published between 2012 and 2022.ResultsThe review identified six different learning tools such as serious games and checklists to guide reflection, targeting different stakeholders, in various healthcare settings. The tools, typically, promoted self-reflection either individually or collaboratively in groups. Evaluations of these tools found them to be useful and supportive of resilience; however, what constitutes resilience was often difficult to discern, particularly the organizational aspect. It became evident from these studies that careful planning and support were needed for their successful implementation.ConclusionsThe tools that are available for review are based on guidelines, checklists, or serious games, all of which offer to prompt either self-reflection or group reflections related to different forms of adaptations that are being performed. In this paper, we propose that more guided reflections mirroring the complexity of resilience in healthcare, along with an interprofessional collaborative and guided approach, are needed for these tools to be enacted effectively to realise change in practice. Future studies also need to explore how tools are perceived, used, and understood in multi-site, multi-level studies with a range of different participants.