Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Center, National Institute for Health Research and Imperial College London, London, England2West Middlesex University Hospital National Health Service Trust, Middlesex, England.
Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Center, National Institute for Health Research and Imperial College London, London, England.
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Aug;175(8):1288-98. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2421.
Improving the quality of health care for general medical patients is a priority, but the organization of general medical ward care receives less scrutiny than the management of specific diseases. Optimizing teams' performance improves patient outcomes in other settings, and interdisciplinary practice is a major target for improvement efforts. However, the effect of interdisciplinary team interventions on general medical ward care has not been systematically reviewed.
To describe the range of objective patient outcomes used in studies of general medical ward interdisciplinary team care, and to evaluate the performance of interdisciplinary interventions against them.
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2013, for interdisciplinary team care interventions in adult general medical wards using an objective patient outcome measure. Reference lists of included articles were also searched. The last search was conducted on January 29, 2014, and the narrative and statistical analysis was conducted through December 1, 2014. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group's tool.
Thirty of 6934 articles met the selection criteria. The studies included 66,548 patients, with a mean age of 63 years. Nineteen of 30 (63%) studies reported length of stay, readmission, or mortality rate as their primary outcome, or did not specify the primacy of their outcomes. The most commonly reported objective patient outcomes were length of stay (23 of 30 [77%]), complications of care (10 of 30 [33%]), in-hospital mortality rate (8 of 30 [27%]), and 30-day readmission rate (8 of 30 [27%]). Of 23 interventions, 16 (70%) had no effect on length of stay, 12 of 15 (80%) did not reduce readmissions, and 14 of 15 (93%) did not affect mortality. Five of 10 (50%) interventions reduced complications of care. In an exploratory quantitative analysis, the interventions did not consistently reduce the relative risk of early readmission or early mortality, or the weighted mean difference in length of stay. All studies had a medium or high risk of bias.
Current evidence suggests that interdisciplinary team care interventions on general medical wards have little effect on traditional measures of health care quality. Complications of care or preventable adverse events may merit inclusion as quality indicators for general medical wards. Future study should clarify how best to implement interdisciplinary team care interventions and establish quality metrics that are credible to both health care professionals and patients in this setting.
提高普通内科患者的医疗质量是当务之急,但普通内科病房护理的组织管理受到的关注不如特定疾病的管理多。在其他环境中,优化团队的表现可改善患者的预后,而跨学科实践是改进工作的主要目标。然而,跨学科团队干预对普通内科病房护理的影响尚未得到系统评价。
描述普通内科病房跨学科团队护理中使用的一系列客观患者结局,并评估跨学科干预措施的效果。
我们从 1998 年 1 月 1 日至 2013 年 12 月 31 日,通过 EMBASE、MEDLINE 和 PsycINFO 数据库,以客观患者结局为指标,检索成人普通内科病房跨学科团队护理的干预措施。还检索了纳入文献的参考文献列表。最后一次检索于 2014 年 1 月 29 日进行,叙述性和统计学分析于 2014 年 12 月 1 日进行。使用 Cochrane 有效实践和组织护理组的工具评估研究质量。
在 6934 篇文章中,有 30 篇符合入选标准。这些研究纳入了 66548 名患者,平均年龄为 63 岁。30 篇研究中的 19 篇(63%)将住院时间、再入院或死亡率作为主要结局报告,或未具体说明其结局的首要性。最常报告的客观患者结局是住院时间(30 篇研究中的 23 篇[77%])、护理并发症(30 篇研究中的 10 篇[33%])、院内死亡率(30 篇研究中的 8 篇[27%])和 30 天再入院率(30 篇研究中的 8 篇[27%])。23 项干预措施中,16 项(70%)对住院时间无影响,15 项中的 12 项(80%)对再入院率无影响,15 项中的 14 项(93%)对死亡率无影响。10 项干预措施中的 5 项(50%)降低了护理并发症的发生率。在一项探索性的定量分析中,这些干预措施并未一致降低早期再入院或早期死亡率的相对风险,或住院时间的加权均数差。所有研究均存在中高度偏倚风险。
现有证据表明,普通内科病房跨学科团队护理干预对传统医疗质量指标几乎没有影响。护理并发症或可预防的不良事件可能值得作为普通内科病房的质量指标。未来的研究应阐明如何最好地实施跨学科团队护理干预措施,并建立在这一环境中对医疗保健专业人员和患者均具可信度的质量指标。