Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 19;11(1):e037667. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037667.
To systematically review the evidence base for a systems approach to healthcare design, delivery or improvement.
Systematic review with meta-analyses.
Included were studies in any patients, in any healthcare setting where a systems approach was compared with usual care which reported quantitative results for any outcomes for both groups. We searched Medline, Embase, HMIC, Health Business Elite, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 28 May 2019 for relevant studies. These were screened, and data extracted independently and in duplicate. Study outcomes were stratified by study design and whether they reported patient and/or service outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted with Revman software V.5.3 using ORs-heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics.
Of 11 405 records 35 studies were included, of which 28 (80%) were before-and-after design only, five were both before-and-after and concurrent design, and two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was heterogeneity of interventions and wide variation in reported outcome types. Almost all results showed health improvement where systems approaches were used. Study quality varied widely. Exploratory meta-analysis of these suggested favourable effects on both patient outcomes (n=14, OR=0.52 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) I=91%), and service outcomes (n=18, OR=0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.52) I=97%).
This study suggests that a systems approaches to healthcare design and delivery results in a statistically significant improvement to both patient and service outcomes. However, better quality studies, particularly RCTs are needed.CRD42017065920.
系统回顾系统方法在医疗保健设计、交付或改进中的证据基础。
系统评价与荟萃分析。
纳入了在任何患者中进行的研究,在任何医疗保健环境中进行的研究,其中系统方法与常规护理进行了比较,并报告了两组患者的任何结局的定量结果。我们从建库到 2019 年 5 月 28 日在 Medline、Embase、HMIC、Health Business Elite、Web of Science、Scopus、PsycINFO 和 CINAHL 中搜索了相关研究。这些研究经过筛选,并独立地由两人提取数据。根据研究设计和报告患者和/或服务结局的情况对研究结果进行分层。使用 Revman 软件 V.5.3 进行荟萃分析,使用 OR 进行异质性评估-使用 I 统计量进行评估。
在 11405 条记录中,有 35 项研究被纳入,其中 28 项(80%)为前后设计,5 项为前后设计和同期设计,2 项为随机对照试验(RCT)。干预措施存在异质性,报告的结局类型也存在很大差异。几乎所有结果都表明使用系统方法可以改善健康状况。研究质量差异很大。对这些结果进行的探索性荟萃分析表明,系统方法对患者结局(n=14,OR=0.52(95%CI 0.38 至 0.71)I=91%)和服务结局(n=18,OR=0.40(95%CI 0.31 至 0.52)I=97%)都有有利影响。
本研究表明,系统方法应用于医疗保健设计和交付可使患者和服务结局得到统计学显著改善。然而,需要更好质量的研究,特别是 RCT。CRD42017065920。