Assessing national provision of care: variability in bariatric clinical care pathways

BACKGROUND

The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) Quality Improvement and Patient Safety (QIPS) Committee hypothesized that collecting and sharing clinical pathways could provide a valuable resource to new and existing bariatric programs.

OBJECTIVE

To shed light on the variability in practice patterns across the country by analyzing pathways.

SETTING

United States Centers of Excellence METHODS: From June 2014 to April 2015, clinical pathways pertaining to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management of bariatric patients were solicited from the ASMBS executive council (EC), QIPS committee members, and state chapter presidents. Pathways were de-identified and then analyzed based on predetermined metrics pertaining to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. Concordance and discordance were then analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 31 pathways were collected; response rate was 80% from the EC, 77% from the QIPS committee, and 21% from state chapter presidents. The number of pathways sent in ranged from 1 to 10 with a median of 3 pathways per individual or institution. The majority of pathways centered on perioperative care (80%). Binary assessment (presence or absence) of variables found a high concordance (defined by greater than 65% of pathways accounting for that parameter) in only 6 variables: nutritional evaluation, psychological evaluation, intraoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, utilization of antiemetics in the postoperative period, a dedicated pain pathway, and postoperative laboratory evaluation.

CONCLUSION

There is considerable national variation in clinical pathways among practicing bariatric surgeons. Most pathways center on Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accredited Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) accreditation parameters, patient satisfaction, or Surgical Care Improvement Protocol (SCIP) measures. These pathways provide a path toward standardization of improved care.

The development, implementation and evaluation of clinical pathways for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Saskatchewan: protocol for an interrupted times series evaluation

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has substantial economic and human costs; it is expected to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. To minimize these costs high quality guidelines have been developed. However, guidelines alone rarely result in meaningful change. One method of integrating guidelines into practice is the use of clinical pathways (CPWs). CPWs bring available evidence to a range of healthcare professionals by detailing the essential steps in care and adapting guidelines to the local context.

METHODS/DESIGN

We are working with local stakeholders to develop CPWs for COPD with the aims of improving care while reducing utilization. The CPWs will employ several steps including: standardizing diagnostic training, unifying components of chronic disease care, coordinating education and reconditioning programs, and ensuring care uses best practices. Further, we have worked to identify evidence-informed implementation strategies which will be tailored to the local context. We will conduct a three-year research project using an interrupted time series (ITS) design in the form of a multiple baseline approach with control groups. The CPW will be implemented in two health regions (experimental groups) and two health regions will act as controls (control groups). The experimental and control groups will each contain an urban and rural health region. Primary outcomes for the study will be quality of care operationalized using hospital readmission rates and emergency department (ED) presentation rates. Secondary outcomes will be healthcare utilization and guideline adherence, operationalized using hospital admission rates, hospital length of stay and general practitioner (GP) visits. Results will be analyzed using segmented regression analysis.

DISCUSSION

Funding has been procured from multiple stakeholders. The project has been deemed exempt from ethics review as it is a quality improvement project. Intervention implementation is expected to begin in summer of 2017. This project is expected to improve quality of care and reduce healthcare utilization. In addition it will provide evidence on the effects of CPWs in both urban and rural settings. If the CPWs are found effective we will work with all stakeholders to implement similar CPWs in surrounding health regions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03075709 ). Registered 8 March 2017.

Effects of clinical pathways for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on patient, professional and systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory syndrome characterized by progressive, partially reversible airway obstruction and lung hyperinflation. COPD has a substantial burden which is seen in both patient quality of life and healthcare costs. One proposed method of minimizing this burden is the implementation of clinical pathways (CPWs). CPWs aim to guide evidence-based practice and improve the interaction between health services. They bring the best available evidence to a range of healthcare professionals by adapting evidence-based clinical guidelines to a local context and detailing the essential steps in the assessment and care of patients.

METHODS

The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of CPWs for the treatment or management of COPD. We will screen search hits from search strategies developed for a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) systematic review on the use of CPWs in primary care and a Cochrane EPOC review on the use of CPWs in hospitals. These searches were run in a range of databases. Studies will be screened independently by two reviewers. All studies identified by our search strategy will be considered regardless of study design as long as they meet the operational definition for clinical pathways developed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8, 2010) and focus on the treatment or management of COPD. All included studies will be evaluated for risk of bias utilizing methodologies set out by the Cochrane collaboration. Data regarding patient, professional and systems outcomes will be extracted from all included studies. Data will be presented in both narrative and tabular form.

DISCUSSION

The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to identify, assess and synthesise all available evidence on the effects of CPWs regarding the treatment and management of COPD. As a result, this review will provide an evidence base for decision makers regarding the practicality, cost effectiveness, patient benefit and best practices regarding the implementation of CPWs for the care of COPD.

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings.

METHODS

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis described in this protocol is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of oncological care pathways. We will conduct a systematic search strategy to identify all relevant literature in several biomedical databases, including Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We will follow the methodology of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), and we will include randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, we will include full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses), cost analyses, and comparative resource utilization studies, if available. Two reviewers will independently screen all studies and evaluate those included for risk of bias. From these studies, we will extract data regarding patient, professional, and health systems outcomes. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

DISCUSSION

Following the protocol outlined in this article, we aim to identify, assess, and synthesize all available evidence in order to provide an evidence base on the effects of oncological care pathways as reported in the literature.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017057592 .

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional and health systems outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathways are frequently used to improve care for cancer patients. However, there is little evidence about the effects of pathways used in oncological care. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to identify and synthesize existing literature on the effects of pathways in oncological care.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with cancer in primary and secondary/tertiary care whose treatment can be characterized as the strategy "care pathways" are included in this review. A systematic search in seven databases was conducted to gather evidence. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Study outcomes regarding patients, professionals, and system level were extracted from each study.

RESULTS

Out of 13,847 search results, we selected 158 articles eligible for full text assessment. One hundred fifty studies were excluded and the remaining eight studies represented 4786 patients. Most studies were conducted in secondary/tertiary care. Length of stay (LOS) was the most common used indicator, and was reported in five studies. Meta-analysis based on subgroups showed an overall shorter LOS regarding gastric cancer (weighted mean difference (WMD)): - 2.75, CI: - 4.67 to - 0.83) and gynecological cancer (WMD: - 1.58, CI: - 2.10 to - 1.05). Costs were reported in six studies and most studies reported lower costs for pathway groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the differences between the included studies, we were able to present an evidence base for cancer care pathways performed in secondary/tertiary care regarding the positive effects of LOS in favor of cancer care pathways.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017057592.

Alterations in care for children with special healthcare needs during the early COVID-19 pandemic: ethical and policy considerations

Healthcare delivery and access, both in the United States and globally, were negatively affected during the entirety of the COVID-19 pandemic. This was particularly true during the first year when countries grappled with high rates of illness and implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions such as stay-at-home orders. Among children with special healthcare needs, research from the United Kingdom (U.K.) has shown that the pandemic response uniquely impacted various aspects of their care, including decreased access to care, delays in diagnosis, and poorer chronic disease control. In response to these findings, and to begin to comprehend whether the concerning findings from the nationalized system of healthcare in the U.K. extend to the highly dissimilar United States (U.S.) healthcare context, we reviewed the literature on alterations in access to and delivery of care during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic for children with special healthcare needs in the U.S. We then utilize these findings to consider the ethical and policy considerations of alterations in healthcare provision during pandemics and crisis events in the U.K. and U.S. and make recommendations regarding how the needs of CSHCN should be considered during future responses.