成人住院小组的地理队列:范围综述。

Deanne T Kashiwagi, Marisha Burden, Michele McGinnis, Elissa A Kinzelman-Vesely, Areeba Y Kara
{"title":"成人住院小组的地理队列:范围综述。","authors":"Deanne T Kashiwagi, Marisha Burden, Michele McGinnis, Elissa A Kinzelman-Vesely, Areeba Y Kara","doi":"10.1002/jhm.70096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Geographic cohorting (GCh) is a popular model of care that localizes physician teams to a single hospital unit.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a scoping review identifying the aims, implementation strategies, study methods, and measured outcomes of GCh.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, Embase, and Scopus databases. Eligible citations included English language reports of interventions including GCh in adult patients. Included studies were screened for their aim, GCh implementation strategy, study method, and outcomes measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1863 identified citations, 30 met inclusion criteria, representing 27 interventions. Implementation aims varied from specific goals measured by a single metric to multiple outcomes intended to capture wide-ranging effects of GCh. A majority of studies (n = 13, 48.1%) used a pre-post cohort design. GCh was implemented in one of four ways: (1) as a stand-alone intervention, (2) bundled with accountable care unit elements, (3) bundled with care components that did not include all ACU elements, (4) GCh bundled with ACU elements and additional components (\"enhanced\" ACU). The measured outcomes sorted to eight different categories: patient outcomes, patient safety, patient experience, work flow, workload, clinician experience, communication/team work, and cost.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current literature on GCh describes implementation as both a stand-alone intervention and bundled with other care elements. Current research has not delineated whether the degree to which GCh is implemented matters, nor what impact it has as part of a bundled care intervention. Future work would benefit from a prospective design that clarifies these questions, facilitating care models tailored to the needs of the practice ecosystem.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geographic cohorting of adult inpatient teams: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Deanne T Kashiwagi, Marisha Burden, Michele McGinnis, Elissa A Kinzelman-Vesely, Areeba Y Kara\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jhm.70096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Geographic cohorting (GCh) is a popular model of care that localizes physician teams to a single hospital unit.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a scoping review identifying the aims, implementation strategies, study methods, and measured outcomes of GCh.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, Embase, and Scopus databases. Eligible citations included English language reports of interventions including GCh in adult patients. Included studies were screened for their aim, GCh implementation strategy, study method, and outcomes measured.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1863 identified citations, 30 met inclusion criteria, representing 27 interventions. Implementation aims varied from specific goals measured by a single metric to multiple outcomes intended to capture wide-ranging effects of GCh. A majority of studies (n = 13, 48.1%) used a pre-post cohort design. GCh was implemented in one of four ways: (1) as a stand-alone intervention, (2) bundled with accountable care unit elements, (3) bundled with care components that did not include all ACU elements, (4) GCh bundled with ACU elements and additional components (\\\"enhanced\\\" ACU). The measured outcomes sorted to eight different categories: patient outcomes, patient safety, patient experience, work flow, workload, clinician experience, communication/team work, and cost.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current literature on GCh describes implementation as both a stand-alone intervention and bundled with other care elements. Current research has not delineated whether the degree to which GCh is implemented matters, nor what impact it has as part of a bundled care intervention. Future work would benefit from a prospective design that clarifies these questions, facilitating care models tailored to the needs of the practice ecosystem.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of hospital medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of hospital medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.70096\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.70096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:地理队列(GCh)是一种流行的护理模式,将医生团队定位到单个医院单位。目的:我们进行了一项范围综述,确定了GCh的目标、实施策略、研究方法和测量结果。方法:检索在线医学文献分析检索系统、Embase和Scopus数据库。符合条件的引用包括成人患者GCh干预的英文报告。筛选纳入的研究的目的、GCh实施策略、研究方法和测量结果。结果:在1863篇被识别的引文中,30篇符合纳入标准,代表27项干预措施。实施目标各不相同,从单一指标衡量的具体目标到旨在捕捉GCh广泛影响的多个结果。大多数研究(n = 13, 48.1%)采用前后队列设计。GCh以四种方式之一实施:(1)作为独立干预,(2)与问责制护理单位要素捆绑,(3)与不包括所有ACU要素的护理要素捆绑,(4)GCh与ACU要素和附加要素(“增强型”ACU)捆绑。测量结果分为八个不同的类别:患者结果、患者安全、患者体验、工作流程、工作量、临床医生经验、沟通/团队工作和成本。结论:目前关于GCh的文献将实施描述为独立干预和与其他护理要素捆绑在一起。目前的研究没有描述GCh的实施程度是否重要,也没有描述它作为捆绑治疗干预的一部分有什么影响。未来的工作将受益于澄清这些问题的前瞻性设计,促进根据实践生态系统需求量身定制的护理模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Geographic cohorting of adult inpatient teams: A scoping review.

Background: Geographic cohorting (GCh) is a popular model of care that localizes physician teams to a single hospital unit.

Objectives: We conducted a scoping review identifying the aims, implementation strategies, study methods, and measured outcomes of GCh.

Methods: We searched the medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, Embase, and Scopus databases. Eligible citations included English language reports of interventions including GCh in adult patients. Included studies were screened for their aim, GCh implementation strategy, study method, and outcomes measured.

Results: Of 1863 identified citations, 30 met inclusion criteria, representing 27 interventions. Implementation aims varied from specific goals measured by a single metric to multiple outcomes intended to capture wide-ranging effects of GCh. A majority of studies (n = 13, 48.1%) used a pre-post cohort design. GCh was implemented in one of four ways: (1) as a stand-alone intervention, (2) bundled with accountable care unit elements, (3) bundled with care components that did not include all ACU elements, (4) GCh bundled with ACU elements and additional components ("enhanced" ACU). The measured outcomes sorted to eight different categories: patient outcomes, patient safety, patient experience, work flow, workload, clinician experience, communication/team work, and cost.

Conclusions: The current literature on GCh describes implementation as both a stand-alone intervention and bundled with other care elements. Current research has not delineated whether the degree to which GCh is implemented matters, nor what impact it has as part of a bundled care intervention. Future work would benefit from a prospective design that clarifies these questions, facilitating care models tailored to the needs of the practice ecosystem.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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