Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Unplanned hospital readmissions are common adverse events. The LACE+ score has been used to identify patients at the highest risk of unplanned readmission or death, yet the external validity of this score remains uncertain. ⋯ The mLACE+, LACE+ and LACE scores predict hospital readmission with excellent calibration and adequate discrimination. These scores can be used to target interventions designed to prevent unplanned hospital readmission.
-
Sharing aspects of the traditional medical record with patients has been successful in primary and antenatal care, but has not been investigated in the UK inpatient setting. Our aim was to evaluate the impact on patient and clinician experience of providing patients with a written lay summary of their care-plan in the acute care setting. ⋯ A summary record could empower patients and improve patient-doctor communication but would require additional clinician and administrative time.
-
Teamworking across sociotechnical boundaries in healthcare is growing as technological advances in medicine abound. With this progress, teams need to find new ways of working together in non-traditional settings. The novel field of clinical genomics provides the opportunity to rethink the existing approach to teamworking and how it needs to evolve. Our aim was to identify the key factors influencing teamworking in the emerging field of clinical genomics and how can they be applied in practice. ⋯ Challenges to teamworking that arise in the elongated adaptive context do not always fit traditional ways of working, and innovative strategies will need to be adopted to ensure the diagnostic advances of clinical genomics are realised. Provision of time and permission for team members to share knowledge and evolve, promoting capacity building, nurturing trustful relationships and establishing boundaries are amongst the practice recommendations for organisational and team leaders, even though these activities may disrupt existing ways of working or hierarchical structures.
-
Alignment between patients' treatment choices and treatments received is acknowledged as an important outcome of shared decision-making (SDM), yet recent research suggests that patients' choices do not always align with their actual treatment trajectories. This paper explores the alignment of patient-expressed treatment choices (for surgery or medical management) after exposure to decision aids and treatments received among patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis within High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) systems as the collaborative integrated decision aids intended to support SDM into routine clinical practice. ⋯ This work elucidates the odds of treatment choice-aligned care for patients within health care systems attempting to routinely integrate decision aids to support SDM into clinical practice and underscores the gaps in achieving this alignment among African American patients, those with public insurance and those at early decision-making stages.
-
Shared decision-making (SDM) processes, combining patients' and professionals' perspectives, are especially necessary for patients with complex needs (CNs) during their care transitions. In 2016, we started implementing interprofessional and interinstitutional SDM processes (IIPs) for patients admitted to a short-stay unit (SSU) for inpatient care and then followed-up by primary care providers. Two types of IIPs were identified: (a) iterative IIPs, and (b) meeting IIPs. These differed in terms of the timing of SDM processes: whereas the former were multilateral and iterative, meeting IIPs were simultaneous. However, the two processes had similar outcomes and participants had similar characteristics. The intervention included other components, such as CNs assessment and a care coordinator position. The present study aimed to assess the feasibility of the intervention's implementation. ⋯ These results showed that an intervention targeting the implementation of formalized IIPs for SDM in transitional care was feasible. However, to improve the evaluation of such interventions, other methods should be used to measure their appropriateness and acceptability. Additionally, assessing the effects of IIPs would legitimize their funding, supporting their sustainability and generalisability.