BACKGROUND: The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients.
METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30 2018 to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with ISS > 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter.
RESULTS: Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13/18, 72%) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of -0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI -0.27 to -0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients.level III, Systematic review and meta-analysisPROSPERO registration ID CRD42017056729.
Background: Improving breastfeeding rates is critical. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only subtle improvements in breastfeeding rates have been observed over the past decade, which highlights the need for accelerating breastfeeding promotion interventions.Objectives: The objective of this article is to update evidence on the effect of interventions on early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs when delivered in health systems, in the home or in community environments, or in a combination of settings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and CABI databases to identify new articles relevant to our current review, which were published after the search date of our earlier meta-analysis (October 2014). Nine new articles were found to be relevant and were included, in addition to the other 52 studies that were identified in our earlier meta-analysis. We reported the pooled ORs and corresponding 95% CIs as our outcome estimates. In cases of high heterogeneity, random-effects models were used and causes were explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.Results: Early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs improved significantly as a result of interventions delivered in health systems, in the home or community, or a combination of these. Interventions delivered concurrently in a combination of settings were found to show the largest improvements in desired breastfeeding outcomes. Counseling provided in any setting and baby-friendly support in health systems appear to be the most effective interventions to improve breastfeeding.Conclusions: Improvements in breastfeeding practices are possible in LMICs with judicious use of tested interventions, particularly when delivered in a combination of settings concurrently. The findings can be considered for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool model.
BACKGROUND: Inspection systems are used in healthcare to promote quality improvements (i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes). These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of healthcare. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational-, provider- and patient-level outcomes are not clear. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for studies up to 1 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, HMIC, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no language restriction and we included studies regardless of publication status. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. We also searched an online database of systematic reviews (PDQ-evidence.org).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update. One cluster RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals and one ITS involving all acute hospital trusts in England, met the inclusion criteria. A trust is a National Health Service hospital which has opted to withdraw from local authority control and be managed by a trust instead.The cluster RCT reported mixed effects of external inspection on compliance with COHSASA (Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Improved total compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was reported for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 37%) (P < 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). The median intervention effect for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4% (range -1.9% to +11.8%).The ITS study evaluated compliance with policies to address healthcare-acquired infections and reported a mean reduction in MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection rates of 100 cases per quarter (95% CI -221.0 to 21.5, P = 0.096) at three months' follow-up and an increase of 70 cases per quarter (95% CI -250.5 to 391.0; P = 0.632) at 24 months' follow-up. Regression analysis showed similar MRSA rates before and after the external inspection (difference in slope 24.27, 95% CI -10.4 to 58.9; P = 0.147).Neither included study reported data on unanticipated/adverse consequences or economic outcomes. The cluster RCT reported mainly outcomes related to healthcare organisation change, and no patient reported outcomes other than patient satisfaction.The certainty of the included evidence from both studies was very low. It is uncertain whether external inspection accreditation programmes lead to improved compliance with accreditation standards. It is also uncertain if external inspection infection programmes lead to improved compliance with standards, and if this in turn influences healthcare-acquired MRSA infection rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of external inspection systems. If policy makers wish to understand the effectiveness of this type of intervention better, there needs to be further studies across a range of settings and contexts and studies reporting outcomes important to patients.
The Baby-friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) is a key component of the World Health Organization/United Nations Children's Fund Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. The primary aim of this narrative systematic review was to examine the impact of BFHI implementation on breastfeeding and child health outcomes worldwide and in the United States. Experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies were considered eligible for this review if they assessed breastfeeding outcomes and/or infant health outcomes for healthy, term infants born in a hospital or birthing center with full or partial implementation of BFHI steps. Of the 58 reports included in the systematic review, nine of them were published based on three randomized controlled trials, 19 followed quasi-experimental designs, 11 were prospective and 19 were cross-sectional or retrospective. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries located in South America, North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, South Asia, Eurasia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Adherence to the BFHI Ten Steps has a positive impact on short-term, medium-term and long-term breastfeeding (BF) outcomes. There is a dose-response relationship between the number of BFHI steps women are exposed to and the likelihood of improved BF outcomes (early BF initiation, exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at hospital discharge, any BF and EBF duration). Community support (step 10) appears to be essential for sustaining breastfeeding impacts of BFHI in the longer term.
BACKGROUND: The increased international focus on improving patient outcomes, safety and quality of care has led stakeholders, policy makers and healthcare provider organizations to adopt standardized processes for evaluating healthcare organizations. Accreditation and certification have been proposed as interventions to support patient safety and high quality healthcare. Guidelines recommend accreditation but are cautious about the evidence, judged as inconclusive. The push for accreditation continues despite sparse evidence to support its efficiency or effectiveness.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes and keyword searches in any language. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and AMSTAR framework. 915 abstracts were screened and 20 papers were reviewed in full in January 2013. Inclusion criteria included studies addressing the effect of hospital accreditation and certification using systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies with a control group, or interrupted time series. Outcomes included both clinical outcomes and process measures. An updated literature search in July 2014 identified no new studies.
RESULTS: The literature review uncovered three systematic reviews and one randomized controlled trial. The lone study assessed the effects of accreditation on hospital outcomes and reported inconsistent results. Excluded studies were reviewed and their findings summarized.
CONCLUSION: Accreditation continues to grow internationally but due to scant evidence, no conclusions could be reached to support its effectiveness. Our review did not find evidence to support accreditation and certification of hospitals being linked to measurable changes in quality of care as measured by quality metrics and standards. Most studies did not report intervention context, implementation, or cost. This might reflect the challenges in assessing complex, heterogeneous interventions such as accreditation and certification. It is also may be magnified by the impact of how accreditation is managed and executed, and the varied financial and organizational healthcare constraints. The strategies hospitals should impelment to improve patient safety and organizational outcomes related to accreditation and certification components remains unclear.
AIM: To provide comprehensive evidence of the effect of interventions on early initiation, exclusive, continued and any breastfeeding rates when delivered in five settings: (i) Health systems and services (ii) Home and family environment (iii) Community environment (iv) Work environment (v) Policy environment or a combination of any of above.
METHODS: Of 23977 titles identified through a systematic literature search in PUBMED, Cochrane and CABI, 195 articles relevant to our objective, were included. We reported the pooled relative risk and corresponding 95% confidence intervals as our outcome estimate. In cases of high heterogeneity, we explored its causes by subgroup analysis and meta-regression and applied random effects model.
RESULTS: Intervention delivery in combination of settings seemed to have higher improvements in breastfeeding rates. Greatest improvements in early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding and continued breastfeeding rates, were seen when counselling or education were provided concurrently in home and community, health systems and community, health systems and home settings, respectively. Baby friendly hospital support at health system was the most effective intervention to improve rates of any breastfeeding.
CONCLUSION: To promote breastfeeding, interventions should be delivered in a combination of settings by involving health systems, home and family and the community environment concurrently.
BACKGROUND: Franchising is an organizational form that originates from the business sector. It is increasingly used in the healthcare sector with the aim of enhancing quality and accessibility for patients, improving the efficiency and competitiveness of organizations and/or providing professionals with a supportive working environment. However, a structured overview of the scientific evidence for these claims is absent, whereas such an overview can be supportive to scholars, policy makers and franchise practitioners.
METHODS: This article provides a systematic review of literature on the outcomes of franchising in health care. Seven major databases were systematically searched. Peer-reviewed empirical journal articles focusing on the relationship between franchising and outcomes were included. Eventually, 15 articles were included and their findings were narratively synthesized. The level of evidence was rated by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale.
RESULTS: The review shows that outcomes of franchising in health care have primarily been evaluated in low- and middle-income countries in the reproductive health/family planning sector. Articles about high-income countries are largely absent, apart from three articles evaluating pharmacy franchises. Most studies focus on outcomes for customers/clients and less on organizations and professionals. The evidence is primarily of low quality. Based on this evidence, franchising is predominantly positively associated with client volumes, physical accessibility and some types of quality. Findings regarding utilization, customer loyalty, efficiency and results for providers are mixed.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that franchising has the potential to improve outcomes in healthcare practices, but the evidence base is yet too weak for firm conclusions. Extensive research is needed to further determine the value of healthcare franchising in various contexts. We advocate more research in other healthcare sectors in both low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries, on more types of outcomes with attention to trade-offs, and on what factors produce those outcomes.
Aims and objectives To systematically review the relationship of trauma centre characteristics and trauma patient outcomes. Background Numerous studies have documented the impact of trauma centre level, trauma centre verification, volume per centre and per surgeon or resource availability on outcomes among trauma patients. However, there continues to be debated about whether trauma care is comparable by these trauma centre characteristics. Design Systematic review. Methods Eligible studies were identified via electronic database searches, footnote chasing and contact with clinical experts. Quality of selected studies was assessed in terms of internal and external validity using 14 questions. Two reviewers independently examined titles, abstracts and whether each met the predefined criteria. Results A total of 50 studies which met criteria were selected. Ten of 17 articles showed that level I trauma centres had better patient outcomes than level II centres. The achievement of trauma centre verification by American College of Surgeons or State was beneficial to decreasing mortality and length of stay in 9 of 11 studies. High trauma admission volume was beneficial in 8 of 16 studies. The volume per trauma surgeon did not contribute to better patient outcomes in 4 of 5 studies. The availability of in-house trauma surgeon was beneficial to lower mortality and shorter length of stay in only 2 of 9 studies. Conclusion This review supports that achieving the trauma centre verification by American College of Surgeons or State is definitely beneficial to patient outcomes. However, the benefit of level I centres compared with level II centres, and volume of annual trauma patients to outcomes is still debating. Further prospective study examining this relationship is required. Relevance to clinical practice Understanding which characteristics of trauma centre provides the best prospect for improved outcomes depending on patient need and resource availability would allow further appreciation of the processes that foster such enhancement.
OBJECTIVE: To synthesise published and unpublished findings examining the relationship between institutional trauma centre volume or trauma patient volume per surgeon and mortality.
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the relationship between patient volume and survival in trauma patients is inconclusive in the literature and remains controversial.
METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1976 and 2013 via MEDLINE (Pubmed) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EbscoHost) as well as footnote chasing. Abstracts from appropriate conferences and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were also searched. Inclusion criteria required studies to be original research published in English that examined the relationship between mortality and either institutional or per surgeon volume in American trauma centres. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement checklist and flowchart. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS: Of 1392 studies reviewed, 19 studies met defined inclusion criteria; all studies were retrospective. The definition of volume was heterogeneous across the studies. Patient population and analysis methods also varied across the studies. Sixteen studies (84%) examined the relationship between institutional trauma centre volume and mortality. Of the 16 studies, 12 examined the volume of severely injured patients and eight examined overall trauma patient volume. High institutional volume was associated with at least somewhat improved mortality in ten of 16 studies (63%); however, nearly half of these studies found only some subpopulations experienced benefits. In the remaining six studies, volume was not associated with any benefits. Four studies (25%) analysed the impact of surgeon volume on mortality. High volume per surgeon was associated with improved mortality in only one of four studies (25%).
CONCLUSIONS: The studies were extremely heterogeneous, thus definitive conclusions cannot be drawn regarding optimal volume before a clear advantage in survival is observed. A prospective study defining volume as a continuous variable is warranted to support current admission criteria for American trauma patients.
BACKGROUND: The deadline for achieving Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 is approaching, but inequalities between disadvantaged and other populations is a significant barrier for progress towards achieving these goals. This systematic review aims to collect evidence about the differential effects of interventions on different sociodemographic groups in order to identify interventions that were effective in reducing maternal or child health inequalities.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and other relevant databases. The reference lists of included reviews were also screened to find more eligible studies. We included experimental or observational studies that assessed the effects of interventions on maternal and child health, but only studies that report quantitative inequality outcomes were finally included for analysis.
RESULTS: 22 articles about the effectiveness of interventions on equity in maternal and child health were finally included. These studies covered five kinds of interventions: immunization campaigns, nutrition supplement programs, health care provision improvement interventions, demand side interventions, and mixed interventions. The outcome indicators covered all MDG 4 and three MDG 5 outcomes. None of the included studies looked at equity in maternal mortality, adolescent birth rate and unmet need for family planning. The included studies reported inequalities based on gender, income, education level or comprehensive socioeconomic status. Stronger or moderate evidence showed that all kinds of the included interventions may be more effective in improving maternal or child health for those from disadvantaged groups.
CONCLUSION: Studies about the effectiveness of interventions on equity in maternal or child health are limited. The limited evidence showed that the interventions that were effective in reducing inequity included the improvement of health care delivery by outreach methods, using human resources in local areas or provided at the community level nearest to residents and the provision of financial or knowledge support to demand side.
The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers.
OBJECTIVES:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients.
METHODS:
Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30 2018 to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with ISS > 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter.
RESULTS:
Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13/18, 72%) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of -0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI -0.27 to -0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies.
CONCLUSION:
Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients.level III, Systematic review and meta-analysisPROSPERO registration ID CRD42017056729.
