Enhancing Patient-Dedicated Time in Clinical Encounters: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Intervention Strategies.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Clement P Buclin, Nils Bürgisser, Amandine Berner, André Juillerat, Caroline Blanc, Matteo Coen, Pauline Darbellay Farhoumand, Violène Porto, Jessie Porzi, Jean-Luc Reny, Delphine S Courvoisier, Thomas Agoritsas
{"title":"Enhancing Patient-Dedicated Time in Clinical Encounters: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Intervention Strategies.","authors":"Clement P Buclin, Nils Bürgisser, Amandine Berner, André Juillerat, Caroline Blanc, Matteo Coen, Pauline Darbellay Farhoumand, Violène Porto, Jessie Porzi, Jean-Luc Reny, Delphine S Courvoisier, Thomas Agoritsas","doi":"10.1007/s11606-025-09843-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hospitals' institutional programs designed to protect or increase the time dedicated to interactions between patients and healthcare professionals, while growing in popularity, often lack formal evaluation. This study aims to quantify the effectiveness of programs designed to protect or enhance the quality or quantity of clinical encounter time between hospitalized patients and healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis were performed on Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Studies had to include ≥ 80% adult inpatients in acute care, compare groups, and assess at least one of the following outcomes: patient satisfaction, length of stay, home discharge, or 30-day readmission. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized trials, and the Cochrane 2.0 instrument for randomized trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 117 unique studies comprising 298,517 patients were included. Compared to their controls, interventions increased the proportion of satisfied patients (+ 8% [95% CI, + 4.7 to + 11.4%]; 26 studies, 20,456 patients), the proportion of patients discharged home (+ 2.6% [95% CI, + 0.3 to + 5.0%]; 21 studies, 61,539 patients), and reduced length of stay (- 1.07 days [95% CI, - 1.62 to - 0.52]; 58 studies, 160,080 patients) without significant difference in readmission rates (- 0.8% [95% CI - 1.8 to + 0.2%]; 49 studies, 177,677 patients). Most studies were at high risk of bias, even among randomized trials. Programs varied widely in interventions, contexts, and findings.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Programs enhancing or protecting clinical encounter time in acute care may improve patient experience, care quality, and discharge processes. Higher quality randomized controlled trials evaluating such interventions are warranted. Future programs may benefit from studies that draw on multi-disciplinary knowledge and implementation sciences to identify contextual factors impacting their success.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>Prospero CRD42023453402.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09843-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hospitals' institutional programs designed to protect or increase the time dedicated to interactions between patients and healthcare professionals, while growing in popularity, often lack formal evaluation. This study aims to quantify the effectiveness of programs designed to protect or enhance the quality or quantity of clinical encounter time between hospitalized patients and healthcare professionals.

Methods: A systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis were performed on Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Studies had to include ≥ 80% adult inpatients in acute care, compare groups, and assess at least one of the following outcomes: patient satisfaction, length of stay, home discharge, or 30-day readmission. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized trials, and the Cochrane 2.0 instrument for randomized trials.

Results: A total of 117 unique studies comprising 298,517 patients were included. Compared to their controls, interventions increased the proportion of satisfied patients (+ 8% [95% CI, + 4.7 to + 11.4%]; 26 studies, 20,456 patients), the proportion of patients discharged home (+ 2.6% [95% CI, + 0.3 to + 5.0%]; 21 studies, 61,539 patients), and reduced length of stay (- 1.07 days [95% CI, - 1.62 to - 0.52]; 58 studies, 160,080 patients) without significant difference in readmission rates (- 0.8% [95% CI - 1.8 to + 0.2%]; 49 studies, 177,677 patients). Most studies were at high risk of bias, even among randomized trials. Programs varied widely in interventions, contexts, and findings.

Discussion: Programs enhancing or protecting clinical encounter time in acute care may improve patient experience, care quality, and discharge processes. Higher quality randomized controlled trials evaluating such interventions are warranted. Future programs may benefit from studies that draw on multi-disciplinary knowledge and implementation sciences to identify contextual factors impacting their success.

Systematic review registration: Prospero CRD42023453402.

提高患者在临床接触中的专用时间:干预策略的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:医院的制度项目旨在保护或增加患者与医护人员之间的互动时间,虽然越来越受欢迎,但往往缺乏正式的评估。本研究旨在量化旨在保护或提高住院患者与医疗保健专业人员临床接触时间的质量或数量的计划的有效性。方法:对Cochrane Library、Embase和Web of Science数据库进行系统文献综述和随机效应荟萃分析。研究必须包括≥80%的急性护理成年住院患者,比较组,并评估以下结果中的至少一项:患者满意度、住院时间、出院或30天再入院。筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估是独立进行的,一式两份。非随机试验采用ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险,随机试验采用Cochrane 2.0工具评估偏倚风险。结果:共纳入117项独特的研究,包括298,517例患者。他们控制相比,干预措施满足患者的比例增加(+ 8% (95% CI, + 4.7 + 11.4%); 26研究中,20456名患者),病人出院的比例(+ 2.6% (95% CI, + 0.3 + 5.0%); 21个研究中,61539名患者),并减少住院时间(- 1.07天(95%可信区间,1.62 - 0.52),58研究中,160080名患者)再次住院的比例没有显著差异(- 0.8% (95% CI, 1.8 + 0.2%); 49研究中,177677名患者)。大多数研究都有很高的偏倚风险,即使在随机试验中也是如此。项目在干预措施、背景和结果方面差异很大。讨论:加强或保护急症护理临床就诊时间的项目可以改善患者体验、护理质量和出院流程。评价这些干预措施的高质量随机对照试验是有必要的。未来的项目可能会受益于多学科知识和实施科学的研究,以确定影响其成功的背景因素。系统评价注册:Prospero CRD42023453402。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信