Search results

Interprofessional education (IPE) has been highly promoted as a means of enhancing interprofessional practice and thereby having a positive impact on healthcare systems and patient outcomes. Various documents mention that sufficient evidence has been accumulated to demonstrate the effectiveness of IPE, yet it is not completely clear what type of evidence is being alluded to. The objective of this review was to gather evidence about IPE programs that resulted in effective long-term outcomes in healthcare. Secondary outcomes included identification of the types of models that met the success criteria, barriers and facilitators of such successful programs if any.

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus. The review considered studies that targeted undergraduate and postgraduate students among more than one health profession and included those in the English language published between 2010 and end of 2020.

Five studies have been identified and described in this review. These papers evaluated different IPE programs and models.

1. This systematic review investigated the evidence of the existence of IPE programs and the findings show there is no robust specific evidence of long-term impact on healthcare and on patients' outcomes. 2. The conclusion from this review is that it is still unclear what format constitutes a successful and efficient program. 3. Appropriate longitudinal studies need to be designed to identify the impact of IPE on long-term health outcomes.

Overall, the studies show that although there is an emphasis on practice-based learning, there is no robust specific evidence of long-term impact on healthcare and on patients' outcomes. Appropriate longitudinal studies need to be designed to identify the impact of IPE on long-term health outcomes.

Understanding the outcomes of co-creation (CC) in healthcare is increasingly gaining multidisciplinary scientific interest. Although more and more service management scholars have pointed out the benefits of cross-fertilization between the various research fields, the literature on this topic is still scattered and poorly integrated. This study aims to summarize and integrate multiple strands of extant knowledge CC by identifying the outcomes of health CC and the determinants of these outcomes and their relationships.

A structured literature review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 4,189 records were retrieved from the six databases; 1,983 articles were screened, with 161 included in the qualitative thematic analysis.

This study advances a comprehensive framework for healthcare CC based on a thorough analysis of the outcomes and their determinants, that is, antecedents, management activities and institutional context. Extant research rarely evaluates outcomes from a multidimensional and systemic perspective. Less attention has been paid to the relationship among the CC process elements.

This study offers an agenda to guide future studies on healthcare CC. Highlighting some areas of integration among different disciplines further advances service literature.

The framework offers an operational guide to better shape managerial endeavors to facilitate CC, provide direction and assess multiple outcomes.

This is the first extensive attempt to synthesize and integrate multidisciplinary knowledge on CC outcomes in healthcare settings by adopting a systematic perspective on the overall process.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extent to which practicing National Health Service (NHS) facilities managers thought that the contribution of facilities management (FM) could be measured in terms of health outcomes.

A questionnaire was distributed to NHS facilities or estate managers from the majority of NHS trusts in England and Wales.

In general, there is little or no evidence from pre‐existing research to prove the contribution of FM in terms of health outcomes. However, in spite of this, 59 per cent of facilities managers in the NHS believe that the contribution of FM could be measured yet only a relatively small number of Trusts (16 per cent) have attempted to measure the contribution of FM. The analysis of the secondary data does not show any conclusive evidence of a correlation between FM and health outcomes.

The scope of the study did not extend to collecting empirical evidence to prove the contribution of FM to health outcomes – it was only focusing on whether facilities managers thought it was possible, and if so how they would measure the contribution. However, as part of the project some secondary data were tested for a relationship between FM services and health outcomes.

This is the first time any study has gathered opinion from facilities managers as to whether they believe their contribution can be measured in terms of organisational outcomes, in this case patient care or health outcomes. It provides a useful starting point in order to develop a future study to prove the contribution from FM to health outcomes.

An experiment was conducted to examine the relationship between patient satisfaction and patients’ freedom to choose a physician and the outcome of a health service encounter. Each construct with corresponding measurements is discussed and their relationship with satisfaction is reviewed. Hypotheses were developed and tested for each relationship using pencil and paper scenarios of a patient’s service encounter at a health clinic. The study yielded four major findings. First, patients who experienced a good health outcome were significantly more satisfied than patients who received a bad health outcome. Second, patient satisfaction ratings differed significantly only in the bad outcome condition, suggesting an outcome bias. Third, patients who were given the freedom to select a physician but did not receive their chosen physician were least satisfied. Fourth, there was no difference in satisfaction between patients who had a choice of physician and those who did not.

Modularity promises to relieve problems of complexity in service systems. However, limited evidence exists of its application in specialized hospital services. The purpose of this paper is to identify enablers, constraints, and outcomes of modularization in specialized hospital services.

A qualitative comparative study of a hematology unit with modular service architecture and an oncology unit with integral service architecture in a university hospital is performed to analyze the service architectures, enablers and constraints of modularization, and outcomes.

A framework and five propositions combining the characteristics of specialized hospital services, enabling activities, and outcomes of modularization were developed. Modular service architecture was developed through limiting the number of treatment components, reorganizing production of standardized components into a separate service unit, and standardizing communication and scheduling in interfaces. Modularization increased service efficiency but diluted ownership of services, decreased customization, and diminished informal communication. This is explained by the specific characteristics of the services: fragmented service delivery, professional autonomy, hierarchy, information asymmetry, and requirement to treat all.

Modularization can increase efficiency in specialized hospital services. However, specific characteristics of specialized care may challenge its application and limit its outcomes.

The study identifies enabling activities and constraints that hospital managers should take into account when developing modular service systems.

This is the first empirical study exploring the enablers, constraints, and outcomes of modularization in specialized hospital services. The study complements literature on service modularity with reference to specialized hospital services.

A repeated measures cohort study was conducted to investigate the impact of attending a day treatment programme on physical and psychological state, and to assess which baseline factors predicted level of recovery. Physical and psychological outcomes of treatment were analysed for 116 patients admitted to the treatment programme between 1996 and 2006 and were found to be in line with previous day care evaluations, with the majority of patients showing improvements on all measures. A multiple regression analysis revealed several factors to be predictive of treatment outcomes including patient demographics, comorbidities and traumatic life events. In particular, those patients who benefited most from the treatment had a lower body mass index at admission, stayed longer at the unit, were older, less likely to have other physical and psychiatric comorbidities, particularly obsessive compulsive disorder or a history of sexual abuse, and whose most predominant eating disorder problem was characterised by low weight.

Institutional pharmaceutical services have widely evolved over the past 20‐30 years. Hospital pharmacy practice has changed from a profession concerned chiefly with the bulk preparation and distribution of drug products to one centred on ensuring optimal drug therapy. Whereas hospital pharmacists were charged with maintaining large drug stock on nursing units, many of them now provide individualised patient therapies. The practice of hospital pharmacy has therefore become one encompassing all aspects of drug therapy, from the procurement of drugs and drug delivery devices, their preparation and distribution, to their most appropriate selection and use for each patient. Hospital pharmacy services have traditionally had little involvement at the key stages in patients’ hospital care. This leads to the conclusion that the model of clinical pharmacy practice adopted by many pharmacy department hospitals is no longer appropriate for the demands of today’s health‐care services. Reviews many new models proposed for clinical pharmacy practice including an integrated model for providing a pharmaceutical care management approach in the health‐care system. This model is a response to the failures of traditional drug therapy. It is primarily an idea about how health professionals and patient should integrate their work to obtain outcomes important to patients and clinicians.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the determinants of health outcomes of dialysis patients, while specifically focusing on the role of dialysis process measures and dialysis practice characteristics. The dialysis industry is facing a major transition from a volume-based health care system to a value-based cost-efficient care model, in the USA. Under the bundled Prospective Payment System, the treatment-based payment model is subject to meeting quality thresholds as defined by clinical process measures including dialysis adequacy and anemia management. Few studies have focused on studying these two processes and their association with the quality of patient health outcomes.

In this study, the authors focus on identifying the determinants of patient health outcomes among freestanding dialysis clinics, using a large cross-sectional data set of 4,571 dialysis clinics in the USA. The authors use econometric analyses to estimate the association between dialysis facility characteristics and practice patterns and their association with dialysis process measures and hospitalization risk.

The authors find that reusing dialyzers and increasing the number of dialysis stations is associated with higher levels of clinical quality. This research indicates that deploying more nurses on-site allows patients to avail adequate dialysis, while increasing the supply of physicians can hurt anemia control process. In addition, the authors report that offering peritoneal dialysis and late night shifts are not beneficial practices in terms of their impact on the hospitalization risk.

While early studies of dialysis care mainly focused on the associations between practice patterns and patient outcomes, this research reveals the underlying mechanisms of these relationships by exploring the mediation effects of clinical dialysis processes on patient outcomes. The results indicate that dialysis process measures mediate the impact of the operational characteristics of dialysis centers on patient hospitalization rates.

This study offers several managerial insights for owners and operators of dialysis clinics with respect to the association between managerial and clinical practices that they deploy within dialysis clinics and their impact on clinical quality measures as well as hospitalization risk of patients. Managers can draw on this study to optimize staffing levels in their dialysis clinics, and implement innovative clinical practices.

Considering the growth in healthcare expenditures in developing and developed countries, and specifically for costly diagnoses such as dialyses, this study offers several insights related to the inter-relationships between dialysis practice patterns and their clinical quality measures.

This study makes several major contributions. First, the authors address the extant gap in the literature on the relationships between dialysis facility and practice characteristics and clinical outcomes, while specifically highlighting the role of clinical process measures as antecedents of patient hospitalization ratio, a key metric used to measure performance of dialysis clinics. Second, this study sheds light on the underlying mechanisms that serve as enablers of the dialysis adequacy and anemia management. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore these relationships in the dialysis industry. The authors’ approach provides a new direction for future studies to explore the pathways that may impact clinical quality measures in the delivery of dialysis services.

Value-based health care (VBHC) argues that health-care needs to re-focus to maximise value creation, defining value as the quota when dividing the outcomes important for the patient, by the cost for health care to deliver such outcomes. This study aims to explore the perception of value among different stakeholders involved in the process of implementing VBHC at a Swedish hospital to support leaders to be more efficient and effective when developing health care.

Participants comprised 19 clinicians and non-clinicians involved in the implementation of VBHC. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and content analysis was performed.

The clinicians described value as a dynamic concept, dependent on the patient and the clinical setting, stating that improving outcomes was more important than containing costs. The value for non-clinicians appeared more driven by the interplay between the outcome and the cost. Non-clinicians related VBHC to a strategic framework for governance or for monitoring different continuous improvement processes, while clinicians appreciated VBHC, as they perceived its introduction as an opportunity to focus more on outcomes for patients and less on cost containment.

There is variation in how clinicians and non-clinicians perceive the key concept of value when implementing VBHC. Clinicians focus on increasing treatment efficacy and improving medical outcomes but have a limited focus on cost and what patients consider most valuable. If the concept of value is defined primarily by clinicians’ own assumptions, there is a clear risk that the foundational premise of VBHC, to understand what outcomes patients value in their specific situation in relation to the cost to produce such outcome, will fail. Health-care leaders need to ensure that patients and the non-clinicians’ perception of value, is integrated with the clinical perception, if VBHC is to deliver on its promise.

The current policy context demands that health service providers demonstrate that services are effective, efficient, value for money and of good quality. Recent Government interest in intermediate care has increased pressure on day hospitals in particular to supply such evidence, because they face competition for their core services (such as rehabilitation care) from other community‐based providers. This review was conducted as part of a small study to evaluate a day hospital service in North London. Findings suggest that the outcomes of day hospital care are especially difficult to appraise because of the highly variable nature of both individual facilities and the needs and capabilities of patients attending. Traditional quantitative methods, such as randomised controlled trials or the use of standardised tools to assess treatment outcomes, face severe methodological problems owing to this variability. Three problems in particular would appear to hamper such research: comparability difficulties, owing to great variations in facilities and patient profiles; defining outcomes, because varying need may result in very different intended treatment outcomes, and determining complete costs, because patients rarely receive day hospital treatment in isolation from other health and social care services. The review suggests therefore that future researchers take a more user‐focused and qualitative research approach to the evaluation of day hospital care, such as by evaluating joint care plans with patients and staff, by assessing costs, by following small numbers of users through treatment and by studying users' and carers' views of (and preferences for) care.