Qualitative Study to Understand Pediatric Hospitalists and Emergency Medicine Physicians' Perspectives of Clinical Pathways

Introduction:

Healthcare costs are rising, and clinical pathways (CPW) are one means to promote high-value care by standardizing care and improving outcomes without compromising cost or quality. However, providers do not always follow CPW, and our understanding of their perceptions is limited. Our objective was to examine pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physician perspectives of CPW.

Methods:

We conducted semistructured, in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews with PHM and PEM physicians between February 2017 and August 2017. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and accuracy verified. Using an inductive analytic strategy, we systematically coded the data to identify themes.

Results:

We interviewed 15 PHM and 15 PEM physicians. These providers identified many benefits and limitations of CPW, which positively or negatively impact resource utilization, communication, education of personnel, patients, and families, as well as practice behaviors and attitudes. Perceived benefits included (1) reduction of unnecessary utilization, (2) standardization of care, (3) improved communication, (4) education of oneself and others, and (5) confidence and validation when actions align with CPW. Limitations of CPW were (1) resource utilization for revisions, updates, and dissemination; (2) “tunnel vision” and cognitive biases; (3) loss of autonomy; (4) prescriptive medicine; (5) information overload; (6) pressure to adhere; and (7) guilt if actions do not align with CPW.

Conclusions:

CPW are tools with advantages and disadvantages that are used and viewed differently by providers. Such insight into how physicians perceive CPW may help to optimize hospital improvement work and enhance high-value care.

The effectiveness of clinical pathway-directed care on hospitalisation-related outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury: A quasi-experimental study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of clinical pathway-directed care to usual care on hospitalisation-related outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (STBI).

BACKGROUND

Severe traumatic brain injury is a major cause of disability and mortality in young adults. Clinical pathways endeavour to bring evidence and clinical practice closer together to foster the delivery of best practice and to improve patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental study.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a trauma intensive care unit of a large teaching hospital in Egypt. Patients aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of STBI, a Glasgow Coma Scale score between 3-8 and a nonpenetrating head injury were consecutively assigned to 15 days of care. The outcomes assessed were complications related to hospitalisation, clinical variances, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ICU readmission rate and patient/family satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixty participants completed the study (30 in each arm). Apart from age, there were no significant differences between groups in baseline characteristics. The clinical pathway group demonstrated statistically significantly fewer cases of hospitalisation-related complications on day 15, and a significantly shorter length of ICU stay, lower ICU readmission rate and a high level of patient/family satisfaction when compared with the usual care group. The effect of the intervention on fever, pressure ulceration, hyperglycaemia and readmission to the ICU was no longer statistically significant after controlling for age.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the current study suggest that the implementation of a clinical pathway for patients with severe TBI may be helpful in improving the patient experience as well as some hospitalisation-related outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The provision of clinical pathway-directed care in a trauma ICU may offer benefits to the patient, family and institution beyond that provided by usual care.