Characteristics of collaborative care networks in functional disorders: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Functional disorders (FD) are complex conditions, for which multidisciplinary involvement is often recommended. Collaborative care networks (CCN) may unlock the potential of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) in FD care. To understand what characteristics should be part of CCNs in FD, we studied the composition and characteristics of existing CCNs in FD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. A search of PubMed, WebofScience, PsycInfo, SocINDEX, AMED and CINAHL was undertaken to select studies describing CCNs in FD. Two reviewers extracted characteristics of the different CCNs. Characteristics were classified as relating to structure and processes of networks.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies were identified representing 39 CCNs across 11 countries. Regarding structural characteristics, we found that most networks are outpatient, secondary-care based, with teams of between two and 19 members. Medical specialists were most commonly involved and the typical team leads as well as main patient contacts were general practitioners (GPs) or nurses. Regarding processes, collaboration was demonstrated mostly during assessment, management and patient education, less often during rehabilitation and follow-up, mostly using MDT meetings. CCNs provided a wide range of treatment modalities, reflecting a biopsychosocial approach, including psychological therapies, physiotherapy and social and occupational therapy.

CONCLUSION

CCNs for FD are heterogeneous, showing a wide variety of structures as well as processes. The heterogeneity of results provides a broad framework, demonstrating considerable variation in how this framework is applied in different contexts. Better development of network evaluation, as well as professional collaboration and education processes is needed.

Overview on the target population and methods used in care pathway projects: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that the efficiency and effectiveness of care processes can be improved in all countries. Care pathways (CPs) are proposed as a method to improve the quality of care by reducing variation. During the last decades, CPs have been intensively used in practice. The objective of this study is to examine the study designs for investigating CPs, for which pathologies CPs are used and what the reported indicators to measure the impact of CPs are.

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature published from 2015 to 2019 was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 286 studies, of which 207 evaluated the impact of CPs, 33 were review articles, 29 studies described the development of a CP, 12 were study protocols and 5 opinion papers. The most frequently reported study design for studying the impact of a CP is pre-posttest (n = 82), followed by cross-sectional studies (n = 50). Oncology, cardiovascular disease and abdominal surgery are the domains with the highest numbers of studies evaluating the impact of CPs. Financial (n = 86), process (n = 76) and clinical indicators (n = 74) are the most frequently reported indicators while service (n = 12) and team indicators (n = 6) are less reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the relative low number of identified studies compared with the number of CP projects in organisations, we conclude that the CP knowledge is not only found in the literature. We, therefore, argue that (inter)national scientific societies should not only focus on searching and spreading evidence on the content of care but also enhance their knowledge sharing initiatives on the organisation of care processes.

A Method to Evaluate Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Clinical Pathways

OBJECTIVE

Clinical pathways (CPs) have been viewed as a multidisciplinary tool to improve the quality and efficiency of evidence-based care. Despite widespread enthusiasm for CPs, research has shown that many CP initiatives are unsuccessful. To this end, this study provides a methodology to evaluate critical success factors (CSFs) that can aid healthcare organizations to achieve successful CP implementation.

DESIGN

This study presents a new approach to evaluate CP implementation CSFs, with the aims being: (1) to identify CSFs for implementation of CPs through a comprehensive literature review and interviews with collaborative experts; (2) to use a filed study data with a robust fuzzy DEMATEL (the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory) approach to visualize the structure of complicated causal relationships between CSFs and obtain the influence level of these factors.

PARTICIPANTS

The filed study data is provided by ten clinical experts of a Chinese hospital.

RESULTS

23 identified CSF factors which are initially identified through a review of the literature and interviews with collaborative experts. Then, a number of direct and indirect relationships are derived from the data such that different perceptions can be integrated into a compromised cause and effect model of CP implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that the proposed approach can systematically evaluate CSFs and realize the importance of each factor such that the most common causes of failure of CP implementation could be eliminated or avoided. Therefore, the tool proposed would help healthcare organizations to manage CP implementation in a more effective and proactive way.