Dataset Information

The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lavallee JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5707820 | biostudies-other | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lavallée Jacqueline F JF Gray Trish A TA Dumville Jo J Russell Wanda W Cullum Nicky N

Implementation science : IS 20171129 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>This systematic ...[more]

PMID: 29187217

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA bundle of preventive measures can be taken to avoid acute kidney injury (AKI) or progression of AKI. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the compliance to AKI care bundles in hospitalized patients and its impact on kidney and patient outcomes.MethodsRandomized controlled trials, observational and interventional studies were included. Studied outcomes were care bundle compliance, occurrence of AKI and moderate-severe AKI, use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), kidney recovery, mortality (ICU, in-hospital and 30-day) and length-of-stay (ICU, hospital). The search engines PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar were used (January 1, 2012 - June 30, 2021). Meta-analysis was performed with the Mantel Haenszel test (risk ratio) and inverse variance (mean difference). Bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RCT) and the NIH study quality tool (non-RCT).ResultsWe included 23 papers of which 13 were used for quantitative analysis (4 RCT and 9 non-randomized studies with 25,776 patients and 30,276 AKI episodes). Six were performed in ICU setting. The number of trials pooled per outcome was low. There was a high variability in care bundle compliance (8 to 100%). Moderate-severe AKI was less frequent after bundle implementation [RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62-0.97]. AKI occurrence and KRT use did not differ between the groups [resp RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.76-1.05; RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.38-1.19]. In-hospital and 30-day mortality was lower in AKI patients exposed to a care bundle [resp RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.73-0.90, RR 0.95 95%CI 0.90-0.99]; this could not be confirmed by randomized trials. Hospital length-of-stay was similar in both groups [MD -0.65, 95%CI -1.40,0.09].ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis shows that implementation of AKI care bundles in hospitalized patients reduces moderate-severe AKI. This result is mainly driven by studies performed in ICU setting. Lack of data and heterogeneity in study design impede drawing firm conclusions about patient outcomes. Moreover, compliance to AKI care bundles in hospitalized patients is highly variable. Additional research in targeted patient groups at risk for moderate-severe AKI with correct and complete implementation of a feasible, well-tailored AKI care bundle is warranted. (CRD42020207523).

Project description:ImportanceThe use of palliative care programs and the number of trials assessing their effectiveness have increased.ObjectiveTo determine the association of palliative care with quality of life (QOL), symptom burden, survival, and other outcomes for people with life-limiting illness and for their caregivers.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL to July 2016.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of palliative care interventions in adults with life-limiting illness.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all trials. Quality of life, symptom burden, and survival were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis, with estimates of QOL translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-palliative care scale (FACIT-Pal) instrument (range, 0-184 [worst-best]; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 9 points); and symptom burden translated to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) (range, 0-90 [best-worst]; MCID, 5.7 points).Main outcomes and measuresQuality of life, symptom burden, survival, mood, advance care planning, site of death, health care satisfaction, resource utilization, and health care expenditures.ResultsForty-three RCTs provided data on 12 731 patients (mean age, 67 years) and 2479 caregivers. Thirty-five trials used usual care as the control, and 14 took place in the ambulatory setting. In the meta-analysis, palliative care was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient QOL at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 11.36] and symptom burden at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, -0.66; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.07; ESAS mean difference, -10.30). When analyses were limited to trials at low risk of bias (n = 5), the association between palliative care and QOL was attenuated but remained statistically significant (standardized mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.34; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 4.94), whereas the association with symptom burden was not statistically significant (standardized mean difference, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.00; ESAS mean difference, -3.28). There was no association between palliative care and survival (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.17). Palliative care was associated consistently with improvements in advance care planning, patient and caregiver satisfaction, and lower health care utilization. Evidence of associations with other outcomes was mixed.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis, palliative care interventions were associated with improvements in patient QOL and symptom burden. Findings for caregiver outcomes were inconsistent. However, many associations were no longer significant when limited to trials at low risk of bias, and there was no significant association between palliative care and survival.

Project description:PurposeTranslating research evidence into clinical practice often uses key performance indicators to monitor quality of care. We conducted a systematic review to identify the stroke key performance indicators used in large registries, and to estimate their association with patient outcomes.MethodWe sought publications of recent (January 2000-May 2017) national or regional stroke registers reporting the association of key performance indicators with patient outcome (adjusting for age and stroke severity). We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed and screened references from bibliographies. We used an inverse variance random effects meta-analysis to estimate associations (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval) with death or poor outcome (death or disability) at the end of follow-up.FindingsWe identified 30 eligible studies (324,409 patients). The commonest key performance indicators were swallowing/nutritional assessment, stroke unit admission, antiplatelet use for ischaemic stroke, brain imaging and anticoagulant use for ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation, lipid management, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis and early physiotherapy/mobilisation. Lower case fatality was associated with stroke unit admission (odds ratio 0.79; 0.72-0.87), swallow/nutritional assessment (odds ratio 0.78; 0.66-0.92) and antiplatelet use for ischaemic stroke (odds ratio 0.61; 0.50-0.74) or anticoagulant use for ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (odds ratio 0.51; 0.43-0.64), lipid management (odds ratio 0.52; 0.38-0.71) and early physiotherapy or mobilisation (odds ratio 0.78; 0.67-0.91). Reduced poor outcome was associated with adherence to swallowing/nutritional assessment (odds ratio 0.58; 0.43-0.78) and stroke unit admission (odds ratio 0.83; 0.77-0.89). Adherence with several key performance indicators appeared to have an additive benefit.DiscussionAdherence with common key performance indicators was consistently associated with a lower risk of death or disability after stroke.ConclusionPolicy makers and health care professionals should implement and monitor those key performance indicators supported by good evidence.

Dataset Information

The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets