Dataset Information

Effectiveness of architectural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres for improving process quality and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted. METHODS:Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature. RESULTS:A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality. CONCLUSIONS:This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.

SUBMITTER: Scholz R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6325836 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of architectural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres for improving process quality and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

Scholz Romy R Hönning Alexander A Seifert Julia J Spranger Nikolai N Stengel Dirk D

Systematic reviews 20190109 1

<h4>Background</h4>Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availabil ...[more]

PMID: 30626433

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy.MethodsWe searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsWe identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low.ConclusionQI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources.Protocol registrationThis study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care provision have often focused on changing approaches to the way services are organized and delivered. Continuous quality improvement (CQI), an approach used extensively in industrial and manufacturing sectors, has been used in the health sector. Despite the attention given to CQI, uncertainties remain as to its effectiveness given the complex and diverse nature of health systems. This review assesses the effectiveness of CQI across different health care settings, investigating the importance of different components of the approach.MethodsWe searched 11 electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, Academic Search Complete, HMIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LISTA, and NHS EED to February 2019. Also, we searched reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews, as well as checking published protocols for linked papers. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within health care settings involving teams of health professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of CQI. Comparators included current usual practice or different strategies to manage organizational change. Outcomes were health care professional performance or patient outcomes. Studies were published in English.ResultsTwenty-eight RCTs assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to CQI with a non-CQI comparator in various settings, with interventions differing in terms of the approaches used, their duration, meetings held, people involved, and training provided. All RCTs were considered at risk of bias, undermining their results. Findings suggested that the benefits of CQI compared to a non-CQI comparator on clinical process, patient, and other outcomes were limited, with less than half of RCTs showing any effect. Where benefits were evident, it was usually on clinical process measures, with the model used (i.e., Plan-Do-Study-Act, Model of Improvement), the meeting type (i.e., involving leaders discussing implementation) and their frequency (i.e., weekly) having an effect. None considered socio-economic health inequalities.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests the benefits of CQI in improving health care are uncertain, reflecting both the poor quality of evaluations and the complexities of health services themselves. Further mixed-methods evaluations are needed to understand how the health service can use this proven approach.Trial registrationProtocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018088309).

Project description:ImportanceBlack patients are at higher risk of revision total knee replacement (TKR) than White patients, but whether racial disparities exist for both septic and aseptic revision TKR and the reason for any disparities are unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the risk of septic and aseptic revision TKR in Black and White patients and to examine interactions among race and socioeconomic and hospital-related variables that are associated with revision TKR risk.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included residents of New York, California, and Florida who underwent TKR. Patient-level data were obtained from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Database, and Florida's Healthcare Utilization Project State Inpatient Database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. Community characteristics were calculated from the US Census and linked to discharges by patient zip code. American Hospital Association Annual Survey data were linked to discharges using hospital identifiers. The analyses were performed from March 1 to October 30, 2020, with subsequent analyses in April 2021.Main outcomes and measuresCox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to measure the association of race with septic and aseptic revision TKR.ResultsA total of 722 492 patients underwent primary TKR, of whom 445 616 (61.68%) were female and 61 092 (8.46%) were Black. Black patients were at higher risk of septic (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20) and aseptic (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.33-1.46) revision TKR compared with White patients. Other risk factors for septic revision TKR were diabetes (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30), obesity (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30), kidney disease (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.57), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.30), inflammatory arthritis (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), surgical site complications during the index TKR (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.87-2.56), Medicaid insurance (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31), and low annual TKR volume at the hospital where the index TKR was performed (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.41-1.68). Risk factors for aseptic revision TKR were male sex (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06), workers' compensation insurance (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.51-1.72), and low hospital TKR volume (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.22). Patients with obesity had a lower risk of aseptic TKR revision (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.84). In an analysis within each category of hospital TKR volume, the HR for aseptic revision among Black vs White patients was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.37) at very-low-volume hospitals (≤89 TKRs annually) compared with 1.68 (95% CI, 1.48-1.90) at very-high-volume hospitals (≥645 TKRs annually).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Black patients were at significantly higher risk of aseptic revision TKR and, to a lesser extent, septic revision TKR compared with White patients. Racial disparities in aseptic revision risk were greatest at hospitals with very high TKR volumes.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of architectural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres for improving process quality and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

Publications

Effectiveness of architectural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres for improving process quality and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets