优化查房:加强患者安全的干预措施的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 8.6 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Ellie C Treloar, Jesse D Ey, Matheesha Herath, Nicholas P R Edwardes, Suzanne Edwards, Martin H Bruening, Guy J Maddern
{"title":"优化查房:加强患者安全的干预措施的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ellie C Treloar, Jesse D Ey, Matheesha Herath, Nicholas P R Edwardes, Suzanne Edwards, Martin H Bruening, Guy J Maddern","doi":"10.1093/bjs/znaf041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor quality ward rounds contribute to a large proportion of patient complications, delayed discharge, and increased hospital cost. This systematic review investigated all interventions aiming to improve patient and process-based outcomes in ward rounds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023394325). MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycInfo were searched for studies with interventions aiming to improve ward round processes or patient outcomes in hospital settings. Studies were excluded if there was no baseline comparator or they were not in the ward round setting. Interventions were coded as checklist interventions (that is electronic or paper-based pro formas, templates, and checklists), structure interventions (that is defined rules or protocol to guide or standardize conduct), or other interventions. Outcomes were assessed via meta-analyses using the I2 statistic, Cochran's Q P value, and random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review included 84 studies, from 18 countries, in 23 specialties, involving 43 570 patients. Checklist interventions significantly reduced ICU length of stay, improved overall documentation, and did not increase ward round duration. Structure interventions did not increase the time spent per patient or impact 30-day readmission rates or patient length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first systematic review with meta-analyses synthesizing the evidence of all ward round interventions targeted at improving patient and process outcomes. Results from this review should be used to inform guidelines for the 'ideal ward round'.</p>","PeriodicalId":136,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Surgery","volume":"112 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing ward rounds: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to enhance patient safety.\",\"authors\":\"Ellie C Treloar, Jesse D Ey, Matheesha Herath, Nicholas P R Edwardes, Suzanne Edwards, Martin H Bruening, Guy J Maddern\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bjs/znaf041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor quality ward rounds contribute to a large proportion of patient complications, delayed discharge, and increased hospital cost. This systematic review investigated all interventions aiming to improve patient and process-based outcomes in ward rounds.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023394325). MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycInfo were searched for studies with interventions aiming to improve ward round processes or patient outcomes in hospital settings. Studies were excluded if there was no baseline comparator or they were not in the ward round setting. Interventions were coded as checklist interventions (that is electronic or paper-based pro formas, templates, and checklists), structure interventions (that is defined rules or protocol to guide or standardize conduct), or other interventions. Outcomes were assessed via meta-analyses using the I2 statistic, Cochran's Q P value, and random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review included 84 studies, from 18 countries, in 23 specialties, involving 43 570 patients. Checklist interventions significantly reduced ICU length of stay, improved overall documentation, and did not increase ward round duration. Structure interventions did not increase the time spent per patient or impact 30-day readmission rates or patient length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first systematic review with meta-analyses synthesizing the evidence of all ward round interventions targeted at improving patient and process outcomes. Results from this review should be used to inform guidelines for the 'ideal ward round'.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"112 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf041\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaf041","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:低质量的查房导致很大比例的患者并发症、延迟出院和增加医院费用。本系统综述调查了所有旨在改善查房时患者和基于过程的结果的干预措施。方法:本系统评价在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库PROSPERO进行前瞻性注册(CRD42023394325)。MEDLINE、Embase、Emcare和PsycInfo检索了旨在改善病房查房过程或医院环境中患者预后的干预研究。如果没有基线比较物或不在查房环境中,则排除研究。干预措施被编码为检查表干预措施(即电子或纸质形式,模板和检查清单),结构干预措施(即定义规则或协议以指导或标准化行为)或其他干预措施。结果通过使用I2统计量、科克伦Q P值和随机效应模型的荟萃分析进行评估。对随机对照试验使用Cochrane风险偏倚2工具,对非随机研究使用Newcastle-Ottawa量表评估偏倚风险。结果:本综述纳入了来自18个国家23个专科的84项研究,涉及43 570例患者。检查表干预显着缩短了ICU的住院时间,改善了总体记录,并且没有增加查房时间。结构干预没有增加每位患者花费的时间或影响30天再入院率或患者住院时间。结论:这是第一个系统综述,荟萃分析综合了所有病房干预措施的证据,旨在改善患者和治疗结果。本综述的结果应用于指导“理想查房”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimizing ward rounds: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to enhance patient safety.

Background: Poor quality ward rounds contribute to a large proportion of patient complications, delayed discharge, and increased hospital cost. This systematic review investigated all interventions aiming to improve patient and process-based outcomes in ward rounds.

Methods: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023394325). MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycInfo were searched for studies with interventions aiming to improve ward round processes or patient outcomes in hospital settings. Studies were excluded if there was no baseline comparator or they were not in the ward round setting. Interventions were coded as checklist interventions (that is electronic or paper-based pro formas, templates, and checklists), structure interventions (that is defined rules or protocol to guide or standardize conduct), or other interventions. Outcomes were assessed via meta-analyses using the I2 statistic, Cochran's Q P value, and random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies.

Results: This review included 84 studies, from 18 countries, in 23 specialties, involving 43 570 patients. Checklist interventions significantly reduced ICU length of stay, improved overall documentation, and did not increase ward round duration. Structure interventions did not increase the time spent per patient or impact 30-day readmission rates or patient length of stay.

Conclusion: This is the first systematic review with meta-analyses synthesizing the evidence of all ward round interventions targeted at improving patient and process outcomes. Results from this review should be used to inform guidelines for the 'ideal ward round'.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1102
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Surgery (BJS), incorporating the European Journal of Surgery, stands as Europe's leading peer-reviewed surgical journal. It serves as an invaluable platform for presenting high-quality clinical and laboratory-based research across a wide range of surgical topics. In addition to providing a comprehensive coverage of traditional surgical practices, BJS also showcases emerging areas in the field, such as minimally invasive therapy and interventional radiology. While the journal appeals to general surgeons, it also holds relevance for specialty surgeons and professionals working in closely related fields. By presenting cutting-edge research and advancements, BJS aims to revolutionize the way surgical knowledge is shared and contribute to the ongoing progress of the surgical community.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信