BACKGROUND: As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.
METHODS: This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).
RESULTS: This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.
CONCLUSION: This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.
BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in healthcare, and primary care is no exception.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews (SR) using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SR. The inclusion criteria were: any primary care contexts; healthcare professionals and patients; any EPOC implementation strategies of specified knowledge products; any comparator; and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019, without any restriction. We searched the references of the included SR. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction was informed by EPOC taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 SR were included. Forty-seven SR involved healthcare professionals alone. Fifteen SR were of high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed one type of knowledge product (56/81), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56) or management, and behavioural or pharmacological health interventions (24/56). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81), predominantly educational-based (meetings in 60/81, materials distribution in 59/81, and academic detailing in 45/81), reminder (53/81) and audit and feedback (40/81) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seem to be more used when the population is composed of Healthcare professionals alone. The improvement of the adoption of knowledge products was the most commonly measured outcome (72/81). The evidence level was reported in 10/81 SR on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvement of adoption), of which 16 outcomes were of moderate or high level.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management, behavioural or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products through the mixed use of educational, reminders and audit and feedback strategies. There is need for a strong methodology for the SR of RCTs to explore their effectiveness and the whole cascade of implementation outcomes.
CLINICALTRIAL: Not applicable.
AIM: Integrated care commonly involves provision of comprehensive community-based care for people with chronic conditions. It is anticipated that implementation of integrated care, with a proactive approach to management of chronic conditions, will reduce reliance on hospital and emergency department (ED) services. The aim of this rapid review was to summarize the best available evidence on the impact of integrated care for patients with chronic conditions on hospital and ED utilization and investigate trends in outcomes over time.
METHODS: Given the large body of literature available on this topic, this rapid review considered existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses that included adults with chronic conditions. Any model of integrated care that involved management of patients across the continuum of care, with the aim to provide more care in community settings, was considered for inclusion. A search of PubMed, CINAHL, Google Advanced, and websites of international healthcare provider organizations was conducted to locate relevant published and gray literature.
RESULTS: A total of 13 systematic reviews were included. Overall, evidence suggests that integrated care may reduce the risk of hospitalization, with reviews including patients with diverse chronic conditions showing a 19% reduction. Integrated care appears effective in reducing readmissions for patients with heart failure, with an absolute risk reduction of 8% for first and 19% for subsequent rehospitalization. For ED presentations, evidence indicates that integrated care has no effect overall but may reduce ED visits for patients aged 65 years or more. For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, integrated care was associated with reductions in length of stay ranging from 2.5 to 4 days. Studies with shorter follow-up, from 3 to 12 months, in general appeared to show a greater impact of integrated care than studies with longer follow-up of 18 months or more.
CONCLUSION: The evidence identified suggests integrated care generally reduces utilization of hospital services. In some instances, there were no differences observed between integrated care and usual care, but no included reviews reported increased utilization of these services. The impact of integrated care may be greater in the short-term, given the ultimate deterioration associated with advanced chronic disease which may negate any long-term benefits.
Case management is a cost-effective strategy for coordinating chronic illness care. However, research showing how case management affects health care is mixed. This study systematically synthesizes and critically evaluates evidence in systematic reviews of health care utilization outcomes from case management interventions for the care of chronic illnesses. Results are synthesized from seven English language systematic reviews published between January 1990 and June 2017. Hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, institutionalization, emergency department visits, and hospitals/primary care visits were all identified as health care utilization outcomes of case management interventions. There was evidence that these interventions positively reduced health care utilization; however, results were mixed. These results and the implications of this review of reviews may be valuable for clinical practitioners, health care researchers, and policymakers.
OBJECTIVE: To describe policy interventions that have the objective to reduce ED use and to estimate their effectiveness.
METHODS: Narrative review by searching three electronic databases for scientific literature review papers published between 2010 and October 2015. The quality of the included studies was assessed with AMSTAR, and a narrative synthesis of the retrieved papers was applied.
RESULTS: Twenty-three included publications described six types of interventions: (1) cost sharing; (2) strengthening primary care; (3) pre-hospital diversion (including telephone triage); (4) coordination; (5) education and self-management support; (6) barriers to access emergency departments. The high number of interventions, the divergent methods used to measure outcomes and the different populations complicate their evaluation. Although approximately two-thirds of the primary studies showed reductions in ED use for most interventions the evidence showed contradictory results.
CONCLUSION: Despite numerous publications, evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that aim to reduce ED use remains insufficient. Studies on more homogeneous patient groups with a clearly described intervention and control group are needed to determine for which specific target group what type of intervention is most successful and how the intervention should be designed. The effective use of ED services in general is a complex and multi-factorial problem that requires integrated interventions that will have to be adapted to the specific context of a country with a feedback system to monitor its (un-)intended consequences. Yet, the co-location of GP posts and emergency departments seems together with the introduction of telephone triage systems the preferred interventions to reduce inappropriate ED visits while case-management might reduce the number of ED attendances by frequent ED users.
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of integrated care interventions in reducing hospital activity.
DESIGN: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
SETTING: Interventions must have delivered care crossing the boundary between at least two health and/or social care settings.
PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with one or more chronic diseases.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Cochrane Library (HTA database, DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), EPPI-Centre, TRIP, HEED, manual screening of references.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Any measure of hospital admission or readmission, length of stay (LoS), accident and emergency use, healthcare costs.
RESULTS: 50 reviews were included. Interventions focused on case management (n=8), chronic care model (CCM) (n=9), discharge management (n=15), complex interventions (n=3), multidisciplinary teams (MDT) (n=10) and self-management (n=5). 29 reviews reported statistically significant improvements in at least one outcome. 11/21 reviews reported significantly reduced emergency admissions (15-50%); 11/24 showed significant reductions in all-cause (10-30%) or condition-specific (15-50%) readmissions; 9/16 reported LoS reductions of 1-7 days and 4/9 showed significantly lower A&E use (30-40%). 10/25 reviews reported significant cost reductions but provided little robust evidence. Effective interventions included discharge management with postdischarge support, MDT care with teams that include condition-specific expertise, specialist nurses and/or pharmacists and self-management as an adjunct to broader interventions. Interventions were most effective when targeting single conditions such as heart failure, and when care was provided in patients' homes.
CONCLUSIONS: Although all outcomes showed some significant reductions, and a number of potentially effective interventions were found, interventions rarely demonstrated unequivocally positive effects. Despite the centrality of integrated care to current policy, questions remain about whether the magnitude of potentially achievable gains is enough to satisfy national targets for reductions in hospital activity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015016458.
Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been widely used around the world seeking to improve health outcomes, and in Brazil it is the basis of the National Program for Improving Access and Quality (PMAQ). The literature published between 1998 and January 2013 that evaluated the effectiveness of P4P to produce results or patterns of access and quality in health was scrutinized. A total of 138 studies, with the inclusion of a further 41 studies (14 systematic reviews, 07 clinical trials and 20 observational studies) were retrieved and analyzed Among the more rigorous studies, favorable conclusions for P4P were less frequent, whereas observational studies were more favorable to positive effects of P4P on the quality of, and access to, health services. Methodological limitations of observational studies may have contributed to these results, but the range of results is more linked to the conceptual and contextual aspects of the use of the P4P schemes reviewed, the heterogeneity of P4P models and results. P4P can be helpful in promoting the achievement of objectives in health care systems, especially in the short term and for specific actions requiring less effort of health care providers, but should be used with caution and with a rigorous planning model, also considering undesirable or adverse effects.
BACKGROUND: COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.
METHODS: In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.
RESULTS: The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.
CONCLUSIONS: This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.
BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
PURPOSE: To review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation.
DATA SOURCES: 5 databases and 8 organizational Web sites were searched through 1 August 2014 for systematic reviews, and PubMed was searched through 1 March 2015 for trials on electronic nicotine delivery systems.
STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers examined 114 articles to identify English-language reviews that reported health, cessation, or adverse outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data from good- and fair-quality reviews, and a second checked for accuracy.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-four reviews were included. Behavioral interventions increased smoking cessation at 6 months or more (physician advice had a pooled risk ratio [RR] of 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58 to 1.96]). Nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.60 [CI, 1.53 to 1.68]), bupropion (RR, 1.62 [CI, 1.49 to 1.76]), and varenicline (RR, 2.27 [CI, 2.02 to 2.55]) were also effective for smoking cessation. Combined behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions increased cessation by 82% compared with minimal intervention or usual care (RR, 1.82 [CI, 1.66 to 2.00]). None of the drugs were associated with major cardiovascular adverse events. Only 2 trials addressed efficacy of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and found no benefit. Among pregnant women, behavioral interventions benefited cessation and perinatal health; effects of nicotine replacement therapy were not significant.
LIMITATION: Evidence published after each review's last search date was not included.
CONCLUSION: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions improve rates of smoking cessation among the general adult population, alone or in combination. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic nicotine delivery systems are limited.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
OBJECTIVE: To review systematic reviews and meta-analyses of integrated care programmes in chronically ill patients, with a focus on methodological quality, elements of integration assessed and effects reported.
DESIGN: Meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified in Medline (1946-March 2012), Embase (1980-March 2012), CINHAL (1981-March 2012) and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (issue 1, 2012).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Methodological quality assessed by the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; elements of integration assessed using a published list of 10 key principles of integration; effects on patient-centred outcomes, process quality, use of healthcare and costs.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven systematic reviews were identified; conditions included chronic heart failure (CHF; 12 reviews), diabetes mellitus (DM; seven reviews), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; seven reviews) and asthma (five reviews). The median number of AMSTAR checklist items met was five: few reviewers searched for unpublished literature or described the primary studies and interventions in detail. Most reviews covered comprehensive services across the care continuum or standardization of care through inter-professional teams, but organizational culture, governance structure or financial management were rarely assessed. A majority of reviews found beneficial effects of integration, including reduced hospital admissions and re-admissions (in CHF and DM), improved adherence to treatment guidelines (DM, COPD and asthma) or quality of life (DM). Few reviews showed reductions in costs.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of integrated care programmes were of mixed quality, assessed only some components of integration of care, and showed consistent benefits for some outcomes but not others.
As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.
METHODS:
This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).
RESULTS:
This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.
CONCLUSION:
This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.
