扩展范围物理治疗师在急诊科是有效和安全的:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Brittany Souter, Anne Jones, L. Sheppard, Michael Crowe
{"title":"扩展范围物理治疗师在急诊科是有效和安全的:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Brittany Souter, Anne Jones, L. Sheppard, Michael Crowe","doi":"10.46743/1540-580x/2022.2130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) are an innovative approach to service delivery that have emerged in response to increasing pressures on emergency departments (EDs). While previous systematic reviews have suggested that ESPs have a positive impact on ED outcomes, clinical practice recommendations based on limited evidence highlight a pressing need for evaluation studies to truly determine their effectiveness and safety in this setting. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of ESPs when delivering services in EDs. Method: Systematic literature searches were conducted using the online databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane Library and Informit in October, 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies investigating the clinical effectiveness and safety of ESPs in EDs in comparison with usual ED medical care providers were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction was completed using a form specifically developed for the study. The quality of each study was assessed using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) as well as a subjective assessment of bias, and the level of evidence was graded using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) evidence hierarchy. Random-effects model meta-analyses were conducted using Stata (version 16.1). Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. These studies provided III-1 to III-3 evidence, with quality scores ranging from 50% to 93%. Consistent positive results were found regarding ESP clinical effectiveness and safety with meta-analyses demonstrating significant reductions in wait time (Cohen’s d effect size: -0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.64 to -0.45) and length of stay (Cohen’s d effect size: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.72) for patients managed by ESPs. Although, confounding of results by treatment urgency made it difficult to establish a clear causal link between ESP services and outcomes. Conclusion: Although it was not able to be suggested that ESPs are an appropriate substitute for usual ED medical care due to the presence of bias and confounding, the results highlighted that ESPs, as an additional staff member in EDs, improve throughput and access to care for patients in lower urgency triage categories.","PeriodicalId":45065,"journal":{"name":"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extended Scope Physiotherapists are Effective and Safe in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Brittany Souter, Anne Jones, L. Sheppard, Michael Crowe\",\"doi\":\"10.46743/1540-580x/2022.2130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: Extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) are an innovative approach to service delivery that have emerged in response to increasing pressures on emergency departments (EDs). While previous systematic reviews have suggested that ESPs have a positive impact on ED outcomes, clinical practice recommendations based on limited evidence highlight a pressing need for evaluation studies to truly determine their effectiveness and safety in this setting. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of ESPs when delivering services in EDs. Method: Systematic literature searches were conducted using the online databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane Library and Informit in October, 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies investigating the clinical effectiveness and safety of ESPs in EDs in comparison with usual ED medical care providers were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction was completed using a form specifically developed for the study. The quality of each study was assessed using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) as well as a subjective assessment of bias, and the level of evidence was graded using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) evidence hierarchy. Random-effects model meta-analyses were conducted using Stata (version 16.1). Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. These studies provided III-1 to III-3 evidence, with quality scores ranging from 50% to 93%. Consistent positive results were found regarding ESP clinical effectiveness and safety with meta-analyses demonstrating significant reductions in wait time (Cohen’s d effect size: -0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.64 to -0.45) and length of stay (Cohen’s d effect size: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.72) for patients managed by ESPs. Although, confounding of results by treatment urgency made it difficult to establish a clear causal link between ESP services and outcomes. Conclusion: Although it was not able to be suggested that ESPs are an appropriate substitute for usual ED medical care due to the presence of bias and confounding, the results highlighted that ESPs, as an additional staff member in EDs, improve throughput and access to care for patients in lower urgency triage categories.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2022.2130\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46743/1540-580x/2022.2130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:大范围物理治疗师(esp)是一种创新的服务提供方法,是为了应对急诊科(ed)日益增加的压力而出现的。虽然以前的系统综述表明,esp对ED的预后有积极影响,但基于有限证据的临床实践建议强调,迫切需要进行评估研究,以真正确定其在这种情况下的有效性和安全性。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估esp在急诊科提供服务时的临床有效性和安全性。方法:系统检索2019年10月Medline (Ovid)、CINAHL (EBSCOhost)、Scopus、PEDro、Cochrane Library和Informit等在线数据库的文献。随机对照试验(RCTs)或队列研究调查了在急诊科使用esp与普通急诊科医疗服务提供者的临床有效性和安全性,符合纳入条件。数据提取使用专门为研究开发的表格完成。每项研究的质量均采用Crowe关键评估工具(CCAT)和主观偏倚评估进行评估,证据水平采用国家卫生与医学研究委员会(NHMRC)证据等级进行分级。使用Stata (version 16.1)进行随机效应模型荟萃分析。结果:11项研究符合系统评价的纳入标准。这些研究提供了III-1至III-3级证据,质量评分从50%到93%不等。在ESP临床有效性和安全性方面,meta分析显示等待时间显著减少(Cohen效应值:-0.54;95%置信区间[CI]: -0.64至-0.45)和住院时间(科恩效应值:-0.79;95% CI: -0.86至-0.72)。然而,由于治疗的紧迫性,结果的混淆使得ESP服务与结果之间难以建立明确的因果关系。结论:虽然由于存在偏倚和混杂因素,不能认为急诊急救员是普通急诊科医疗护理的适当替代品,但结果强调,急诊急救员作为急诊科的一名额外工作人员,可以提高急诊分诊类别患者的吞吐量和获得护理的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extended Scope Physiotherapists are Effective and Safe in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Purpose: Extended scope physiotherapists (ESPs) are an innovative approach to service delivery that have emerged in response to increasing pressures on emergency departments (EDs). While previous systematic reviews have suggested that ESPs have a positive impact on ED outcomes, clinical practice recommendations based on limited evidence highlight a pressing need for evaluation studies to truly determine their effectiveness and safety in this setting. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of ESPs when delivering services in EDs. Method: Systematic literature searches were conducted using the online databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, PEDro, Cochrane Library and Informit in October, 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies investigating the clinical effectiveness and safety of ESPs in EDs in comparison with usual ED medical care providers were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction was completed using a form specifically developed for the study. The quality of each study was assessed using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) as well as a subjective assessment of bias, and the level of evidence was graded using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) evidence hierarchy. Random-effects model meta-analyses were conducted using Stata (version 16.1). Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. These studies provided III-1 to III-3 evidence, with quality scores ranging from 50% to 93%. Consistent positive results were found regarding ESP clinical effectiveness and safety with meta-analyses demonstrating significant reductions in wait time (Cohen’s d effect size: -0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.64 to -0.45) and length of stay (Cohen’s d effect size: -0.79; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.72) for patients managed by ESPs. Although, confounding of results by treatment urgency made it difficult to establish a clear causal link between ESP services and outcomes. Conclusion: Although it was not able to be suggested that ESPs are an appropriate substitute for usual ED medical care due to the presence of bias and confounding, the results highlighted that ESPs, as an additional staff member in EDs, improve throughput and access to care for patients in lower urgency triage categories.
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
25.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
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