Emergency training for in-hospital-based healthcare providers: effects on clinical practice and patient outcomes

Social norms interventions to change clinical behaviour in health workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

A social norms intervention seeks to change the clinical behaviour of a target health worker by exposing them to the values, beliefs, attitudes or behaviours of a reference group or person. These low-cost interventions can be used to encourage health workers to follow recommended professional practice.

Objective

To summarise evidence on whether or not social norms interventions are effective in encouraging health worker behaviour change, and to identify the most effective social norms interventions.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

The following databases were searched on 24 July 2018: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to week 2 July 2018), EMBASE (1974 to 3 July 2018), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1937 to July 2018), British Nursing Index (2008 to July 2018), ISI Web of Science (1900 to present), PsycINFO (1806 to week 3 July 2018) and Cochrane trials (up to July 2018).

Participants

Health workers took part in the study.

Interventions

Behaviour change interventions based on social norms.

Outcome measures

Health worker clinical behaviour, for example prescribing (primary outcome), and patient health outcomes, for example blood test results (secondary), converted into a standardised mean difference.

Methods

Titles and abstracts were reviewed against the inclusion criteria to exclude any that were clearly ineligible. Two reviewers independently screened the remaining full texts to identify relevant papers. Two reviewers extracted data independently, coded for behaviour change techniques and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We performed a meta-analysis and presented forest plots, stratified by behaviour change technique. Sources of variation were explored using metaregression and network meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 4428 abstracts were screened, 477 full texts were screened and findings were based on 106 studies. Most studies were in primary care or hospitals, targeting prescribing, ordering of tests and communication with patients. The interventions included social comparison (in which information is given on how peers behave) and credible source (which refers to communication from a well-respected person in support of the behaviour). Combined data suggested that interventions that included social norms components were associated with an improvement in health worker behaviour of 0.08 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.10 standardised mean differences) (n = 100 comparisons), and an improvement in patient outcomes of 0.17 standardised mean differences (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.20) (n = 14), on average. Heterogeneity was high, with an overall I 2 of 85.4% (primary) and 91.5% (secondary). Network meta-analysis suggested that three types of social norms intervention were most effective, on average, compared with control: credible source (0.30 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.47); social comparison combined with social reward (0.39 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.64); and social comparison combined with prompts and cues (0.33 standardised mean differences, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.44).

Limitations

The large number of studies prevented us from requesting additional information from authors. The trials varied in design, context and setting, and we combined different types of outcome to provide an overall summary of evidence, resulting in a very heterogeneous review.

Conclusions

Social norms interventions are an effective method of changing clinical behaviour in a variety of health service contexts. Although the overall result was modest and very variable, there is the potential for social norms interventions to be scaled up to target the behaviour of a large population of health workers and resulting patient outcomes.

Future work

Development of optimised credible source and social comparison behaviour change interventions, including qualitative research on acceptability and feasibility.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016045718.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital

BACKGROUND

Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life-threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta-analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation-of-care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high-, middle- and low-income settings.Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low-certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation-of-care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population).We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow-up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses.We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta-analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life-threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high-quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias.