Evaluating evidence: defining levels and quality using critical appraisal mixed methods tools

Stroke Inpatient Rehabilitation Environments: Aligning Building Construction and Clinical Practice Guidelines Through Care Process Mapping

BACKGROUND

Stroke inpatient rehabilitation is a complex process involving stroke survivors, staff, and family utilizing a common space for a shared purpose: to optimize recovery. This complex pathway is rarely fully described. Stroke care is ideally guided by Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the rehabilitation built environment should serve to optimize care delivery, patient and staff experience. We aimed to articulate the inpatient stroke rehabilitation process of care in a series of process maps, and to understand the degree to which current stroke clinical and building construction (ie, design) guidelines align to support inpatient stroke rehabilitation.

METHODS

We used the Value-Focused Process Engineering methodology to create maps describing the events and activities that typically occur in the current stroke inpatient rehabilitation service model. These maps were completed through individual and group session consultations with stroke survivors, architects, policy makers, and clinical experts. We then determined which sections of the Australian Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines and the Australasian Health Facility Design Guidelines could be aligned and applied to the process maps.

RESULTS

We present a summary process map for stroke inpatient rehabilitation, alongside detailed process maps for 4 different phases of rehabilitation (admission, a normal weekday, a weekend day, and discharge) using Value-Focused Process Engineering notation. The integration of design and clinical guidelines with care pathway maps revealed where guidelines lack detail to be readily linked to current stroke inpatient care practice, providing an opportunity to design stroke inpatient rehabilitation spaces based on the activities occurring within them.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight gaps where clinical and design experts should work together to use guidelines to their full potential; and to improve the process of planning for future stroke rehabilitation units.

Hierarchy of Evidence: An Appraisal Tool for Weighting the Evidence in Healthcare Design Research Based on Internal Validity

PURPOSE

This inquiry aims to develop an appraisal tool to offer greater granularity in weighing evidence in the field of healthcare design research.

BACKGROUND

In evidence-based design (EBD), the goal is to implement interventions that result in a meaningful and optimal effect based on current best evidence. Although multiple appraisal tools (many adopted from medical disciplines) have been instrumental in evaluating studies in the field of healthcare design research to identify the best evidence, they do not necessarily consider the unique contexts of healthcare design research, and methodologies appropriate to the field.

METHODS

Five basic types of studies are ranked based on the level of confidence that they offer regarding the estimate of an effect: (1) meta-analysis studies, (2) causal studies, (3) correlational studies, (4) descriptive studies, and (5) anecdotal evidence. Causal studies are further divided into four levels based on the interaction of two factors: (1) type of intervention and (2) groups' equivalency and extraneous variable control.

RESULTS

An eight-level hierarchy of evidence for healthcare design research is proposed that is expected to improve upon previous hierarchies in three major ways: (a) including research methods that are more relevant to healthcare design research, (b) enhancing evaluation accuracy and reliability by providing a clearer definition of studies based on their key components rather than using study labels alone, and (c) distinguishing different levels of evidence, particularly in causal studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed appraisal tool is developed specifically for EBD by reflecting on the unique context of healthcare design research and practice.

Telehealth Use for Enhancing the Health of Rural Older Adults: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Telehealth holds potential for inclusive and cost-saving health care; however, a better understanding of the use and acceptance of telehealth for health promotion among rural older adults is needed. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence for telehealth use among rural-living older adults and to explore cost-effectiveness for health systems and patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study designs reporting health promotion telehealth interventions with rural-living adults aged 55 and older were eligible for review. Following screening and inclusion, articles were quality-rated and ranked by level of evidence. Data extraction was guided by the Technology Acceptance Model and organized into outcomes related to ease of use, usefulness, intention to use, and usage behavior along with cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Of 2,247 articles screened, 42 were included. Positive findings for the usefulness of telehealth for promoting rural older adults' health were reported in 37 studies. Evidence for ease of use and usage behavior was mixed. Five studies examined intention to continue to use telehealth and in 4 of these, patients preferred telehealth. Telehealth was cost-effective for health care delivery (as a process) compared to face to face. However, findings were mixed for cost-effectiveness with both reports of savings (e.g., reduced travel) and increased costs (e.g., insurance).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Telehealth was useful for promoting health among rural-living older adults. Technological supports are needed to improve telehealth ease of use and adherence. Cost-effectiveness of telehealth needs more study, particularly targeting older adults.

Built environments for inpatient stroke rehabilitation services and care: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To identify, appraise and synthesise existing design evidence for inpatient stroke rehabilitation facilities; to identify impacts of these built environments on the outcomes and experiences of people recovering from stroke, their family/caregivers and staff.

DESIGN

A convergent segregated review design was used to conduct a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched for articles published between January 2000 and November 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies investigating the impact of the built environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities on stroke survivors, their family/caregivers and/or staff.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors separately completed the title, abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Extracted data were categorised according to the aspect of the built environment explored and the outcomes reported. These categories were used to structure a narrative synthesis of the results from all included studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included, most qualitative and exploratory. Half of the included articles investigated a particular aspect of the built environment, including environmental enrichment and communal areas (n=8), bedroom design (n=3) and therapy spaces (n=1), while the other half considered the environment in general. Findings related to one or more of the following outcome categories: (1) clinical outcomes, (2) patient activity, (3) patient well-being, (4) patient and/or staff safety and (5) clinical practice. Heterogeneous designs and variables of interest meant results could not be compared, but some repeated findings suggest that attractive and accessible communal areas are important for patient activity and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke rehabilitation is a unique healthcare context where patient activity, practice and motivation are paramount. We found many evidence gaps that with more targeted research could better inform the design of rehabilitation spaces to optimise care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020158006.

Application of Theory in Studies of Healthcare Built Environment Research

We aimed to examine the nature and extent of theory application in studies of built environment attributes and impact on adults in healthcare facilities. Many varied theories are described when providing the rationale for research into built environments in healthcare. Uncertainty exists around the right theory to frame a research question, alignment with measurement tools, and whether healthcare setting makes a difference. This poses challenges to researchers seeking to build the evidence base for built environment design that benefits patients and staff. Our multidisciplinary review team scoped the literature to determine how theories are used to inform research investigating the impact of the built environment of healthcare on adults. When researchers recorded theory at development of the study question, in data collection, and in data analysis/interpretation, we called this explicitly theory-based application. Synthesis occurred using a narrative approach. Overall, we found 17 diverse theories named in studies. Explicitly theory-based use occurred with eight theories, comprising 47% of all theories used. Five theories were named more frequently in studies out of all theories identified. In 20% of studies, theory was not used explicitly during the research inquiry. We argue that researchers must continue to strive toward explicit use of theories, similar to development of other health interventions that employ multifactorial components.

Development of generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology: a systematic literature review informing the 2018 EULAR recommendations

Objective

To identify generic competences on the desired knowledge, skills and of health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) to inform the respective EULAR recommendations.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed on the generic core competences (defined as knowledge, skills or attitudes) of HPRs (nurses, physical therapists (PTs) or occupational therapists (OTs)). Literature was obtained from electronic databases, published EULAR recommendations and via personal communication with representatives of national rheumatology societies and experts in the field. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included, and their methodological quality was scored using appropriate instruments.

Results

From 766 references reviewed, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies addressed competences of multiple HPRs: 15 were of qualitative design, 1 quantitative, 1 mixed-methods, 2 systematic reviews and 1 opinion paper. The methodological quality of most studies was medium to high. Five studies concerned the development of a comprehensive set of competences. Key competences included: basic knowledge of rheumatic diseases, holistic approach to patient management, effective communication with colleagues and patients and provision of education to patients. The proposed competences were confirmed in studies focusing on one or more specific competences, on a rheumatic disease or on a specific profession (nurses, PTs or OTs).

Conclusion

Generic competences were identified for HPRs. Data were mostly derived from qualitative studies. All identified studies varied and were at national level, highlighting the need for the harmonisation of HPR competences across Europe. These findings underpin the development of EULAR recommendations for the core competences of HPRs.

A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Decentralized Nursing Stations

Objectives:

The objective of this systematic review of literature was to critically evaluate peer-reviewed evidence regarding the effectiveness of decentralized nurse stations (DNSs).

Background:

The DNS has become an important topic in healthcare design research and practice over the past decade with aims of improving staff efficiency and patient experience. Research has shown to be inconclusive, with studies reporting an assortment of mixed findings.

Method:

A systematic review of literature was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search process of electronic databases, citation tracking, and manual searches of references. All authors evaluated the studies independently. Studies included were empirical, peer-reviewed investigations of DNS in hospitals over the past 15 years. Each study was evaluated using an accepted healthcare design evaluation framework.

Results:

Over 200 studies were identified. After exclusions, 21 studies published since 2003 were available for full evaluation. Key findings from this review include (a) there is a positive trend toward patient experience in units with DNS, (b) nursing teamwork was perceived to decline in units with DNS, (c) methodological issues may be responsible for the mixed and inconsistent findings, and (d) there is no consistent categorization of nurse station typology or standard definition for DNS.

Conclusions:

Based on the evaluation framework, DNS are supportive of the patient experience yet have a negative impact on nursing teamwork. Higher quality studies are needed to classify specific typologies of DNS and account for elements such as patient care models, communication, visibility, and other patient care–related factors.

Single-Occupancy Patient Rooms: A Systematic Review of the Literature Since 2006

AIM

Our review evaluated both the effects of single-occupancy patient rooms (SPRs) on patient outcomes for hospitalized adults and user opinion related to SPRs.

BACKGROUND

In 2006, a requirement for SPRs in hospitals was instituted in the United States. This systematic literature review evaluates research published since that time to evaluate the impact of SPRs.

METHODS

The review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus. Supplemental searches were performed. We included studies reporting patient outcomes or user opinion related to SPRs. Appraisal was conducted using a dual appraisal system of evidence levels and methodological quality.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies qualified for appraisal. Three were excluded due to methodological quality (no appraisal score). One study was appraised for three individual outcomes (i.e., falls, infections, and user opinion). Eleven studies with low methodological quality scores were not included in the narrative synthesis. Overall, 87% of studies reported advantages associated with SPRs (some a combination of advantages and disadvantages or a combination of advantages and neutral results). Outcomes with the best evidence of benefit include communication, infection control, noise reduction/perceived sleep quality, and preference/perception.

CONCLUSION

SPRs seem to result in more advantages than disadvantages. However, healthcare is a complex adaptive system, and decisions for 100% SPRs should be reviewed alongside related issues, such as necessary workflow modifications, unit configuration and other room layout decisions, patient populations, staffing models, and inherent trade-offs (e.g., the advantages of privacy compared to disadvantage of isolation).

Private Rooms in Low Acuity Settings: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

Determine if the peer-reviewed evidence supports single-patient ward bedrooms in low-acuity care settings within a hospital.

BACKGROUND

New evidence exists since the 2006 Facility Guideline Institute guideline recommended single-bedded rooms (SBRs) in low-acuity care settings. Additionally, prior studies evaluated high-acuity care settings (e.g., critical care) in their recommendations on SBRs. There is a need to reevaluate the evidence.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was completed including electronic and hand searches of references. A data extraction form was utilized. Two reviewers evaluated the studies independently. Studies that were included examined the effect of single-patient rooms on medical surgical ward beds only. Each study was graded using accepted clinical evidence grading instruments.

RESULTS

Over 1,400 records were identified. After excluding studies, a total of 49 records were graded. The highest quality evidence identified (Center for Evidence-Based Medicine [CEBM]: 2a, 2b, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] C) did not support the use of single-patient rooms for reducing infections, for minimizing patient falls, for reducing medication errors, or for patient satisfaction. Operational efficiencies were improved with SBRs but only addressed the maternity ward. The lowest quality evidence (CEBM: 4/5 and GRADE D) supported the use of single-patient rooms.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on CEBM and GRADE assessments, there is a lack of high-quality data supporting the use of low-acuity SBRs throughout the entire hospital. Furthermore, it is recommended that more research be conducted on the effect of SBRs, so higher quality evidence is developed.

Evidence-Based Design and Research-Informed Design: What's the Difference? Conceptual Definitions and Comparative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This article provides critical examination and comparison of the conceptual meaning and underlying assumptions of the concepts evidence-based design (EBD) and research-informed design (RID) in order to facilitate practical use and theoretical development.

BACKGROUND

In recent years, EBD has experienced broad adoption, yet it has been simultaneously critiqued for rigidity and misapplication. Many practitioners are gravitating to the term RID to describe their method of integrating knowledge into the design process. However, the term RID lacks a clear definition and the blurring of terms has the potential to weaken advances made integrating research into practice.

METHOD

Concept analysis methods from Walker and Avant were used to define the concepts for comparison.

RESULTS

Conceptual definitions, process descriptions, examples (i.e., model cases), and methods of evaluation are offered for EBD and RID. Although EBD and RID share similarities in meaning, the two terms are distinct. When comparing evidence based (EB) and research informed, EB is a broad base of information types (evidence) that are narrowly applied (based), while the latter references a narrow slice of information (research) that is broadly applied (informed) to create an end product of design.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the confusion between the use of the concepts EBD and RID arises out of differing perspectives between the way practitioners and academics understand the underlying terms. The authors hope this article serves to generate thoughtful dialogue, which is essential to the development of a discipline, and look forward to the contribution of the readership.

The SCOPE of Hospital Falls: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review

PURPOSE

This systematic mixed studies review on hospital falls is aimed to facilitate proactive decision-making for patient safety during the healthcare facility design.

BACKGROUND

Falls were identified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services as a nonreimbursed hospital-acquired condition (HAC) due to volume and cost, and additional financial penalties were introduced with the 2014 U.S. HAC reduction program. In 2015, the Joint Commission alert identified patient falls as one of the top reported sentinel events, and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) added slips, trips, and falls as a focus for investigators' healthcare inspections. Variations in fall rates at both the hospital and the unit level are indicative of an ongoing challenge. The built environment can act as a barrier or enhancement to achieving the desired results in safety complexity that includes the organization, people, and environment.

METHODS

The systematic literature review used Medical Subject Heading terms and key word alternates for hospital falls with searches in MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CINAHL. The search was limited to English-language papers.

RESULTS

Following full-text review, 27 papers were included and critically appraised using an evaluation matrix that included a mixed methods appraisal tool. Themes were coded by broad categories of factors for organization (policy/operations), people (caregivers/staff, patients), and the environment (healthcare facility design). Subcategories were developed to define the physical environment and consider the potential interventions in the context of relative stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Conditions of hospital falls were identified and evaluated through the literature review. A theoretical model was developed to propose a human factors framework while considering the permanence of solutions.

Firefighting to Innovation: Using Human Factors and Ergonomics to Tackle Slip, Trip, and Fall Risks in Hospitals

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to use a theoretical model (bench) for human factors and ergonomics (HFE) and a comparison with occupational slips, trips, and falls (STFs) risk management to discuss patient STF interventions (bedside).

BACKGROUND

Risk factors for patient STFs have been identified and reported since the 1950s and are mostly unchanged in the 2010s. The prevailing clinical view has been that STF events indicate underlying frailty or illness, and so many of the interventions over the past 60 years have focused on assessing and treating physiological factors (dizziness, illness, vision/hearing, medicines) rather than designing interventions to reduce risk factors at the time of the STF.

METHOD

Three case studies are used to discuss how HFE has been, or could be, applied to STF risk management as (a) a design-based (building) approach to embed safety into the built environment, (b) a staff- (and organization-) based approach, and (c) a patient behavior-based approach to explore and understand patient perspectives of STF events.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The results from the case studies suggest taking a similar HFE integration approach to other industries, that is, a sustainable design intervention for the person who experiences the STF event-the patient.

APPLICATION

This paper offers a proactive problem-solving approach to reduce STFs by patients in acute hospitals. Authors of the three case studies use HFE principles (bench/book) to understand the complex systems for facility and equipment design and include the perspective of all stakeholders (bedside).

Shared decision making in designing new healthcare environments-time to begin improving quality

BACKGROUND

Successful implementation of new methods and models of healthcare to achieve better patient outcomes and safe, person-centered care is dependent on the physical environment of the healthcare architecture in which the healthcare is provided. Thus, decisions concerning healthcare architecture are critical because it affects people and work processes for many years and requires a long-term financial commitment from society. In this paper, we describe and suggest several strategies (critical factors) to promote shared-decision making when planning and designing new healthcare environments.

DISCUSSION

This paper discusses challenges and hindrances observed in the literature and from the authors extensive experiences in the field of planning and designing healthcare environments. An overview is presented of the challenges and new approaches for a process that involves the mutual exchange of knowledge among various stakeholders. Additionally, design approaches that balance the influence of specific and local requirements with general knowledge and evidence that should be encouraged are discussed. We suggest a shared-decision making and collaborative planning and design process between representatives from healthcare, construction sector and architecture based on evidence and end-users' perspectives. If carefully and systematically applied, this approach will support and develop a framework for creating high quality healthcare environments.

The environment of safe care: considering building design as one facet of safety

Patient safety is often considered in a behavioral context – what can someone do differently to improve outcomes? However, as a complex system of interactions, patient safety is better advanced through a systems thinking lens of human factors and ergonomics (HFE). While HFE is sometimes considered in three domains: physical, cognitive, and organizational, research in the area of the design of the physical environment is often limited to products, equipment and furnishings to accommodate a diverse population of users. With an increased focus on reimbursement related to patient safety as part of healthcare reform, organizations are becoming more aware of their own shortcomings and grappling with solutions to improve performance – typically people and processes. Yet the influence of the built environment, the space in which people work and are cared for, can act as a barrier or enhancement to achieving the desired results – physically, cognitively, and organizationally. Latent conditions of the built environment can contribute to hazards and risk within the system and using Reason’s Swiss Cheese Model can also become an additional layer of defense. A consensus-based safety risk assessment (SRA) design decision tool is being developed to address these built environment latent conditions funded through a three-year grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).