Dataset Information

IT-supported integrated care pathways for diabetes: A compilation and review of good practices.

ABSTRACT: Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) are a method for the mutual decision-making and organization of care for a well-defined group of patients during a well-defined period. The aim of a care pathway is to enhance the quality of care by improving patient outcomes, promoting patient safety, increasing patient satisfaction, and optimizing the use of resources. To describe this concept, different names are used, e.g. care pathways and integrated care pathways. Modern information technologies (IT) can support ICPs by enabling patient empowerment, better management, and the monitoring of care provided by multidisciplinary teams. This study analyses ICPs across Europe, identifying commonalities and success factors to establish good practices for IT-supported ICPs in diabetes care.A mixed-method approach was applied, combining desk research on 24 projects from the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) with follow-up interviews of project participants, and a non-systematic literature review. We applied a Delphi technique to select process and outcome indicators, derived from different literature sources which were compiled and applied for the identification of successful good practices.Desk research identified sixteen projects featuring IT-supported ICPs, mostly derived from the EIP on AHA, as good practices based on our criteria. Follow-up interviews were then conducted with representatives from 9 of the 16 projects to gather information not publicly available and understand how these projects were meeting the identified criteria. In parallel, the non-systematic literature review of 434 PubMed search results revealed a total of eight relevant projects. On the basis of the selected EIP on AHA project data and non-systematic literature review, no commonalities with regard to defined process or outcome indicators could be identified through our approach. Conversely, the research produced a heterogeneous picture in all aspects of the projects' indicators. Data from desk research and follow-up interviews partly lacked information on outcome and performance, which limited the comparison between practices.Applying a comprehensive set of indicators in a multi-method approach to assess the projects included in this research study did not reveal any obvious commonalities which might serve as a blueprint for future IT-supported ICP projects. Instead, an unexpected high degree of heterogeneity was observed, that may reflect diverse local implementation requirements e.g. specificities of the local healthcare system, local regulations, or preexisting structures used for the project setup. Improving the definition of and reporting on project outcomes could help advance research on and implementation of effective integrated care solutions for chronic disease management across Europe.

SUBMITTER: Vrijhoef HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5476194 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntegrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They have the potential to enhance continuity of care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork and staff education. In order to inform the development of neurosurgical ICPs in the future, we performed a systematic review to aggregate examples of neurosurgical ICP, to consider their impact and design features that may be associated with their success.MethodsElectronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for relevant literature published from date of inception to July 2020. Primary studies reporting details of neurosurgical ICPs, across all pathologies and age groups were eligible for inclusion. Patient outcomes in each case were also recorded.ResultsTwenty-four studies were included in our final dataset, from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Korea, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, and a number of sub-specialties. 3 for cerebrospinal fluid diversion, 1 functional, 2 neurovascular, 1 neuro-oncology, 2 paediatric, 2 skull base, 10 spine, 1 for trauma, 2 miscellaneous (other craniotomies). All were single centre studies with no regional or national examples. Thirteen were cohort studies while 11 were case series which lacked a control group. Effectiveness was typically evaluated using hospital or professional performance metrics, such as length of stay (n = 11, 45.8%) or adverse events (n = 17, 70.8%) including readmission, surgical complications and mortality. Patient reported outcomes, including satisfaction, were evaluated infrequently (n = 3, 12.5%). All studies reported a positive impact. No study reported how the design of the ICP was informed by published literature or other methods.ConclusionsICPs have been successfully developed across numerous neurosurgical sub-specialities. However, there is often a lack of clarity over their design and weaknesses in their evaluation, including an underrepresentation of the patient's perspective.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with uncontrolled diabetes are at greater risk for several oral health problems, particularly periodontal (gum) disease. Periodontal disease also impacts diabetes control. Good oral hygiene and regular dental visits are recommended to prevent and manage oral health problems. Several studies have been conducted to assess the oral health knowledge, attitudes, and practices of people with diabetes yet a review of these findings has not yet been undertaken. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current evidence on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of people with diabetes in relation to their oral health care. METHODS:A systematic search of all literature was carried out in five databases using key search terms. The inclusion criteria were: 1) published in the English language; 2) from 2000 to November, 2017; 3) conducted on persons with any type of diabetes and of all ages; 4) explored at least one study outcome (knowledge or attitude or practices toward oral health care); and 5) used quantitative methods of data collection. No restrictions were placed on the quality and setting of the study. RESULTS:A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies included a total of 27,894 people with diabetes and were conducted in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits. They rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers. Provision of oral health education by diabetes care providers and referral to dentists when required, was associated with improved oral health behaviours among patients. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, people with diabetes have limited oral health knowledge and poor oral health behaviours. It is therefore essential to educate patients about their increased risk for oral health problems, motivate them for good oral health behaviours and facilitate access to dental care.

Project description:BackgroundMany individuals with diabetes live in low- or middle-income settings. Glycemic control is challenging, particularly in resource-limited areas that face numerous healthcare barriers.ObjectiveTo compare HbA1c outcomes for individuals randomized to TIME, a Telehealth-supported, Integrated care with CHWs (Community Health Workers), and MEdication-access program (intervention) versus usual care (wait-list control).DesignRandomized clinical trial.ParticipantsLow-income Latino(a) adults with type 2 diabetes.InterventionsTIME consisted of (1) CHW-participant telehealth communication via mobile health (mHealth) for 12 months, (2) CHW-led monthly group visits for 6 months, and (3) weekly CHW-physician diabetes training and support via telehealth (video conferencing).Main measuresInvestigators compared TIME versus control participant baseline to month 6 changes of HbA1c (primary outcome), blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), weight, and adherence to seven American Diabetes Association (ADA) standards of care. CHW assistance in identifying barriers to healthcare in the intervention group were measured at the end of mHealth communication (12 months).Key resultsA total of 89 individuals participated. TIME individuals compared to control participants had significant HbA1c decreases (9.02 to 7.59% (- 1.43%) vs. 8.71 to 8.26% (- 0.45%), respectively, p = 0.002), blood pressure changes (systolic: - 6.89 mmHg vs. 0.03 mmHg, p = 0.023; diastolic: - 3.36 mmHg vs. 0.2 mmHg, respectively, p = 0.046), and ADA guideline adherence (p < 0.001) from baseline to month 6. At month 6, more TIME than control participants achieved > 0.50% HbA1c reductions (88.57% vs. 43.75%, p < 0.001). BMI and weight changes were not significant between groups. Many (54.6%) TIME participants experienced > 1 barrier to care, of whom 91.7% had medication issues. CHWs identified the majority (87.5%) of barriers.ConclusionsTIME participants resulted in improved outcomes including HbA1c. CHWs are uniquely positioned to identify barriers to care particularly related to medications that may have gone unrecognized otherwise. Larger trials are needed to determine the scalability and sustainability of the intervention.Clinical trialNCT03394456, accessed at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03394456.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence that integrated diabetes care interventions can substantially improve clinical outcomes is mixed. However, previous systematic reviews have not focussed on clinical effectiveness where the endocrinologist was actively involved in guiding diabetes management.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases and grey literature published in English language up to 25 January 2021. Reviewed articles included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and pre-post studies testing the effectiveness on clinical outcomes after ≥6 months intervention in non-pregnant adults (age ≥ 18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Two reviewers independently extracted data and completed a risk of bias assessment. Appropriate meta-analyses for each outcome from RCTs and pre-post studies were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q and publication bias assessed using Doi plots. Studies were not pooled to estimate the cost-effectiveness as the cost outcomes were not comparable across trials/studies.ResultsWe reviewed 4 RCTs and 12 pre-post studies. The integrated care model of diabetes specialists working with primary care health professionals had a positive impact on HbA1c in both RCTs and pre-post studies and on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and weight in pre-post studies. In the RCTs, interventions reduced HbA1c (-0.10% [-0.15 to -0.05]) (-1.1 mmol/mol [-1.6 to -0.5]), versus control. Pre-post studies demonstrated improvements in HbA1c (-0.77% [-1.12 to -0.42]) (-8.4 mmol/mol [-12.2 to -4.6]), systolic blood pressure (-3.30 mmHg [-5.16 to -1.44]), diastolic blood pressure (-3.61 mmHg [-4.82 to -2.39]), total cholesterol (-0.33 mmol/L [-0.52 to -0.14]) and weight (-2.53 kg [-3.86 to -1.19]). In a pre-post study with no control group only 4% patients experienced hypoglycaemia after one year of intervention compared to baseline.ConclusionsIntegrated interventions with an active endocrinologist involvement can result in modest improvements in HbA1c, blood pressure and weight management. Although the improvements per clinical outcome are modest, there is possible net improvements at a holistic level.

Project description:Integrated care interventions for chronic conditions can lead to improved outcomes, but it is not clear when and why this is the case. This study aims to answer the following two research questions: First, what are the context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes? Second, what are the relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes?A systematic literature search was conducted for the period 2003-2013 in Cochrane and PubMed. Articles were included when they focussed on integrated care and type 2 diabetes, and concerned empirical research analysing the implementation of an intervention. Data extraction was performed using a common data extraction table. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The CMO model (context + mechanism?=?outcome) was used to study the relationship between context factors (described by the barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation process and categorised at the six levels of the Implementation Model), mechanisms (defined as intervention types and described by their number of Chronic Care Model (sub-)components) and outcomes (the intentional and unintentional effects triggered by mechanism and context).Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Most reported barriers to the implementation process were found at the organisational context level and most facilitators at the social context level. Due to the low number of articles reporting comparable quantitative outcome measures or in-depth qualitative information, it was not possible to make statements about the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes.Efficient resource allocation should entail increased investments at the organisational context level where most barriers are expected to occur. It is likely that investments at the social context level will also help to decrease the development of barriers at the organisational context level, especially by increasing staff involvement and satisfaction. If future research is to adequately inform practice and policy regarding the impact of these efforts on health outcomes, focus on the actual relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes should be actively incorporated into study designs.

Dataset Information

IT-supported integrated care pathways for diabetes: A compilation and review of good practices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets