Dataset Information

Identifying harm reduction strategies for alcohol and drug-use in inpatient care settings and emergency departments: a scoping review protocol

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

People who use alcohol and/or drugs (PWUAD) are at high risk of medical complications, frequent hospitalisation and drug-related death following discharge from inpatient settings and emergency departments (EDs). Harm reduction strategies implemented in these settings may mitigate negative health outcomes for PWUAD. However, the scope of harm reduction strategies used globally within inpatient settings and EDs is unknown. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise reported harm reduction strategies that have been implemented across inpatient settings and EDs for PWUAD.

Methods and analysis

This review will include studies from any country and health service reporting on harm reduction strategies implemented in inpatient settings or EDs. The population of interest includes people of any race, gender and age identifying as PWUAD, or individuals who provided care to PWUAD. Studies which describe implementation strategies and barriers and enablers to implementation will be included. Studies published in English, or those available for English translation will be included. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE All (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier Embase.com), CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) and SCOPUS (Elsevier Scopus.com). A grey literature search will be conducted. There will be no date restrictions on the search. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened in duplicate. Data will be extracted using a standardised form. The results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews.

Ethics and dissemination

Scoping reviews do not require ethical approval. Patient partners with lived experience and relevant knowledge users will be engaged as research team members throughout all phases of the research process. A report detailing context, methodology and findings from this review will be disseminated to knowledge users and relevant community stakeholders. This review will be submitted for publication to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: Curran J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557290 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Understanding complexity in healthcare has the potential to reduce decision and treatment uncertainty. Therefore, identifying both patient and task complexity may offer better task allocation and design recommendation for next-generation health information technology system design.To identify specific complexity-contributing factors in the infectious disease domain and the relationship with the complexity perceived by clinicians.We observed and audio recorded clinical rounds of three infectious disease teams. Thirty cases were observed for a period of four consecutive days. Transcripts were coded based on clinical complexity-contributing factors from the clinical complexity model. Ratings of complexity on day 1 for each case were collected. We then used statistical methods to identify complexity-contributing factors in relationship to perceived complexity of clinicians.A factor analysis (principal component extraction with varimax rotation) of specific items revealed three factors (eigenvalues>2.0) explaining 47% of total variance, namely task interaction and goals (10 items, 26%, Cronbach's Alpha=0.87), urgency and acuity (6 items, 11%, Cronbach's Alpha=0.67), and psychosocial behavior (4 items, 10%, Cronbach's alpha=0.55). A linear regression analysis showed no statistically significant association between complexity perceived by the physicians and objective complexity, which was measured from coded transcripts by three clinicians (Multiple R-squared=0.13, p=0.61). There were no physician effects on the rating of perceived complexity.Task complexity contributes significantly to overall complexity in the infectious diseases domain. The different complexity-contributing factors found in this study can guide health information technology system designers and researchers for intuitive design. Thus, decision support tools can help reduce the specific complexity-contributing factors. Future studies aimed at understanding clinical domain-specific complexity-contributing factors can ultimately improve task allocation and design for intuitive clinical reasoning.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with a syncope constitute a challenge for risk stratification in (prehospital) emergency care. Professionals in EMS and ED need to differentiate the high-risk from the low-risk syncope patient, with limited time and resources. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are designed to support professionals in risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Current CDRs seem unable to meet the standards to be used in the chain of emergency care. However, the need for a structured approach for syncope patients remains. We aimed to generate a broad overview of the available risk stratification tools and identify key elements, scoring systems and measurement properties of these tools.MethodsWe performed a scoping review with a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from January 2010 to May 2022. Study selection was done by two researchers independently and was supervised by a third researcher. Data extraction was performed through a data extraction form, and data were summarised through descriptive synthesis. A quality assessment of included studies was performed using a generic quality assessment tool for quantitative research and the AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews.ResultsThe literature search identified 5385 unique studies; 38 were included in the review. We discovered 19 risk stratification tools, one of which was established in EMS patient care. One-third of risk stratification tools have been validated. Two main approaches for the application of the tools were identified. Elements of the tools were categorised in history taking, physical examination, electrocardiogram, additional examinations and other variables. Evaluation of measurement properties showed that negative and positive predictive value was used in half of the studies to assess the accuracy of tools.ConclusionA total of 19 risk stratification tools for syncope patients were identified. They were primarily established in ED patient care; most are not validated properly. Key elements in the risk stratification related to a potential cardiac problem as cause for the syncope. These insights provide directions for the key elements of a risk stratification tool and for a more advanced process to validate risk stratification tools.