Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The problem of loneliness has garnered increased attention from policymakers, payors, and providers due to higher rates during the pandemic, particularly among seniors. Prior systematic reviews have in general not been able to reach conclusions about effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: Computerized databases were searched using broad terms such as "loneliness" or "lonely" or "social isolation" or "social support" from Jan 1, 2011 to June 23, 2021. We reference mined existing systematic reviews for additional and older studies. The Social Interventions Research & Evaluation Network database and Google were searched for gray literature on Feb 4, 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs and observational studies of interventions to reduce loneliness in community-living adults that used a validated loneliness scale; studies from low- or middle-income countries were excluded, and studies were excluded if restricted to populations where all persons had the same disease (such as loneliness in persons with dementia). RESULTS: A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. Eleven RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that group-based treatment was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.48, - 0.08). Five RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that internet training was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs = - 0.22, 95% CI - 0.30, - 0.14). Low certainty evidence suggested that group exercises may be associated with very small reductions in loneliness. Evidence was insufficient to reach conclusions about group-based activities, individual in-person interactions, internet-delivered interventions, and telephone-delivered interventions. DISCUSSION: Low-to-moderate certainty evidence exists that group-based treatments, internet training, and possibly group exercises are associated with modest reductions in loneliness in community-living older adults. These findings can inform the design of supplemental benefits and the implementation of evidence-based interventions to address loneliness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO ( CRD42021272305 ).

Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Transitioning from One Electronic Health Record to Another: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Transitioning to a new electronic health record (EHR) presents different challenges than transitions from paper to electronic records. We synthesized the body of peer-reviewed literature on EHR-to-EHR transitions to evaluate the generalizability of published work and identify knowledge gaps where more evidence is needed. METHODS: We conducted a broad search in PubMed through July 2022 and collected all publications from two prior reviews. Peer-reviewed publications reporting on data from an EHR-to-EHR transition were included. We extracted data on study design, setting, sample size, EHR systems involved, dates of transition and data collection, outcomes reported, and key findings. RESULTS: The 40 included publications were grouped into thematic categories for narrative synthesis: clinical care outcomes (n = 15), provider perspectives (n = 11), data migration (n = 8), patient experience (n = 4), and other topics (n = 5). Many studies described single sites that are early adopters of technology with robust research resources, switching from a homegrown system to a commercial system, and emphasized the dynamic effect of transitioning on important clinical care and other outcomes over time. DISCUSSION: The published literature represents a heterogeneous mix of study designs and outcome measures, and while some of the stronger studies in this review used longitudinal approaches to compare outcomes across more sites, the current literature is primarily descriptive and is not designed to offer recommendations that can guide future EHR transitions. Transitioning from one EHR to another constitutes a major organizational change that requires nearly every person in the organization to change how they do their work. Future research should include human factors as well as diverse methodological approaches such as mixed methods and implementation science.

Care Coordination Models and Tools-Systematic Review and Key Informant Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination (CC) interventions involve systematic strategies to address fragmentation and enhance continuity of care. However, it remains unclear whether CC can sufficiently address patient needs and improve outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program, from inception to September 2019. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality using modified AMSTAR 2. Eligible systematic reviews (SR) examined diverse CC interventions for community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions and/or at higher risk for acute care. From eligible SR and relevant included primary studies, we abstracted the following: study and intervention characteristics; target population(s); effects on hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and/or patient experience; setting characteristics; and tools and approaches used. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals who implemented CC interventions. RESULTS: Of 2324 unique citations, 16 SR were eligible; 14 examined case management or transitional care interventions; and 2 evaluated intensive primary care models. Two SR highlighted selection for specific risk factors as important for effectiveness; one of these also indicated high intensity (e.g., more patient contacts) and/or multidisciplinary plans were key. Most SR found inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations or ED visits; few reported on patient experience. Effective interventions were implemented in multiple settings, including rural community hospitals, academic medical centers (in urban settings), and public hospitals serving largely poor, uninsured populations. Primary studies reported variable approaches to improve patient-provider communication, including health coaching and role-playing. SR, primary studies, and key informant interviews did not identify tools for measuring patient trust or care team integration. Sustainability of CC interventions varied and some were adapted over time. DISCUSSION: CC interventions have inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations and ED visits. Future work should address how they should be adapted to different healthcare settings and which tools or approaches are most helpful for implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42020156359.

Effect of interventions for non-emergent medical transportation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transportation is an important social determinant of health. We conducted a systematic review of the associations on health and health care utilization of interventions aimed at reducing barriers to non-emergency transportation and non-medical transportation. METHODS: We searched three databases and the gray literature through mid-January 2022. Included studies needed to assess an intervention targeted at non-emergency or non-medical transportation barriers, report missed (or kept) visits, health care utilization, costs, or health outcomes. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and included information about study design, results, and risk of bias. Primary outcomes were frequency of missed appointments, health care utilization, costs, and health outcomes. Synthesis was both narrative and meta-analytic using a random effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, three randomized trials, one controlled trial, and eight observational studies. All included studies had some element of risk of bias. Populations studied usually had chronic or serious health conditions or were poor. Interventions included van rides, bus or taxi vouchers, ride-sharing services, and others. Meta-analysis of seven studies (three trials, four observational studies) yielded a pooled estimate of missed appointments = 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48, 0.83) favoring interventions. Evidence on cost, utilization, and health outcomes were too sparse to support conclusions. Evidence on the effect of non-medical transportation is limited to a single study. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Interventions aimed at non-emergency transportation barriers to access health care are associated with fewer missed appointments; the association with costs, utilization or health outcomes is insufficiently studied to reach conclusions. This review was registered in PROSPERO as ID CRD42020201875.

Scaling Beyond Early Adopters: a Content Analysis of Literature and Key Informant Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Innovations and improvements in care delivery are often not spread across all settings that would benefit from their uptake. Scale-up and spread efforts are deliberate efforts to increase the impact of innovations successfully tested in pilot projects so as to benefit more people. The final stages of scale-up and spread initiatives must contend with reaching hard-to-engage sites. OBJECTIVE: To describe the process of scale-up and spread initiatives, with a focus on hard-to-engage sites and strategies to approach them. DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis of systematically identified literature and key informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Leads from large magnitude scale-up and spread projects. APPROACH: We conducted a systematic literature search on large magnitude scale-up and spread and interviews with eight project leads, who shared their perspectives on strategies to scale-up and spread clinical and administrative practices across healthcare systems, focusing on hard-to-engage sites. We synthesized these data using content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Searches identified 1919 titles, of which 52 articles were included. Thirty-four discussed general scale-up and spread strategies, 11 described hard-to-engage sites, and 7 discussed strategies for hard-to-engage sites. These included publications were combined with interview findings to describe a fourth phase of the national scale-up and spread process, common challenges for spreading to hard-to-engage sites, and potential benefits of working with hard-to-engage sites, as well as useful strategies for working with hard-to-engage sites. CONCLUSIONS: We identified scant published evidence that describes strategies for reaching hard-to-engage sites. The sparse data we identified aligned with key informant accounts. Future work could focus on better documentation of the later stages of spread efforts, including specific tailoring of approaches and strategies used with hard-to-engage sites. Spread efforts should include a "flexible, tailored approach" for this highly variable group, especially as implementation science is looking to expand its impact in routine care settings.

Toolkit and distance coaching strategies: a mixed methods evaluation of a trial to implement care coordination quality improvement projects in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination tools and toolkits can be challenging to implement. Practice facilitation, an active but expensive strategy, may facilitate toolkit implementation. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of distance coaching, a form of practice facilitation, for improving the implementation of care coordination quality improvement (QI) projects. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) initiative. Twelve matched US Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were randomized to receive coaching and an online care coordination toolkit ("coached"; n = 6) or access to the toolkit only ("non-coached"; n = 6). We did interviews at six, 12, and 18 months. For coached sites, we'ly collected site visit fieldnotes, prospective coach logs, retrospective coach team debriefs, and project reports. We employed matrix analysis using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a taxonomy of outcomes. We assessed each site's project(s) using an adapted Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Eleven sites implemented a local CTAC project. Eight sites (5 coached, 3 non-coached) used at least one tool from the toolkit. Coached sites implemented significantly more complex projects than non-coached sites (11.5 vs 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.75-6.25, p < 0.001); engaged in more formal implementation processes (planning, engaging, reflecting and evaluating); and generally had larger, more multidisciplinary QI teams. Regardless of coaching status, sites focused on internal organizational improvement and low-intensity educational projects rather than the full suite of care coordination tools. At 12 months, half the coached and non-coached sites had clinic-wide project implementation; the remaining coached sites had implemented most of their project(s), while the remaining non-coached sites had either not implemented anything or conducted limited pilots. At 18 months, coached sites reported ongoing effort to monitor, adapt, and spread their CTAC projects, while non-coached sites did not report much continuing work. Coached sites accrued benefits like improved clinic relationships and team QI skill building that non-coached sites did not describe. CONCLUSIONS: Coaching had a positive influence on QI skills of (and relationships among) coached sites' team members, and the scope and rigor of projects. However, a 12-month project period was potentially too short to ensure full project implementation or to address cross-setting or patient-partnered initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03063294 .

Sitters as a Patient Safety Strategy to Reduce Hospital Falls: A Systematic Review.

Background: Bedside "sitters" are often used for patients at high risk for falls, but they are expensive and their effectiveness is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the effect of sitters and alternatives to sitters on patient falls in acute care hospitals. Data Sources: PubMed searches to 8 October 2019, other databases from inception to December 2018, citation searches on key articles, and a Google search (22 October 2019). Study Selection: English-language studies of any design that assessed the effect of adding sitters to usual care or compared alternatives to sitters (for example, video monitors or "close observation units") for adult patients on general wards of acute care hospitals and reported falls as a primary outcome. Data Extraction: Dual-reviewer extraction of study data and risk of bias; single reviewer with group discussion for GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) certainty of evidence. Data Synthesis: Of 20 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 2 added sitters to usual care and 18 compared alternatives to sitters. There were no randomized trials, 11 time-series studies, 1 retrospective quasi-experimental study, and 8 pre-post studies. All studies had at least 1 methodological limitation. Two studies provided very-low-certainty evidence that adding sitters reduced falls. Eight studies provided moderate-certainty evidence that interventions that included video monitoring reduced sitter use and either did not affect or reduced the number of falls. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that interventions that included nurse assessment tools (3 studies) or a close observation unit (2 studies) were effective alternatives to sitters. Limitation: No studies had low risk of bias, publication bias is likely, and studies may have been missed. Conclusion: Despite a compelling rationale, evidence is scant that adding sitters to usual care reduces falls. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42019127424).

What Is the Optimal Primary Care Panel Size?: A Systematic Review.

Background: Primary care for a panel of patients is a central component of population health, but the optimal panel size is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the association of primary care panel size with health care outcomes and provider burnout. Data Sources: English-language searches of multiple databases from inception to October 2019 and Google searches performed in September 2019. Study Selection: English-language studies of any design, including simulation models, that assessed the association between primary care panel size and safety, efficacy, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, equity, or provider burnout. Data Extraction: Independent, dual-reviewer extraction; group consensus rating of certainty of evidence. Data Synthesis: Sixteen hypothesis-testing studies and 12 simulation modeling studies met inclusion criteria. All but 1 hypothesis-testing study were cross-sectional assessments of association. Three studies each provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with no or modestly adverse effects on patient-centered and effective care. Eight studies provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with variable effects on timely care. No studies assessed the effect of panel size on safety, efficiency, or equity. One study provided very-low-certainty evidence of an association between increased panel size and provider burnout. The 12 simulation studies evaluated 5 models; all used access as the only outcome of care. Five and 2 studies, respectively, provided moderate-certainty evidence that adjusting panel size for case mix and adding clinical conditions to the case mix resulted in better access. Limitation: No studies had concurrent comparison groups, and published and unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations about the optimal primary care panel size for achieving beneficial health outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

Sustaining Successful Clinical-community Partnerships in Medically Underserved Urban Areas: A Qualitative Case Study.

Clinical-community partnerships can improve access and receipt of preventive health services in community settings. Understanding how to sustain their potential benefits is warranted. Qualitative case-study of the Faith Community Health Partnership (FCHP), a collaboration between faith-community nurses and community organizations sustained over 25 years. We used content analysis principles to report on partnership sustainability themes identified through semi-structured interviews with FCHP partners (n = 18). Factors supporting partnership sustainability: Maintaining partners' commitment over time; strategic resource-sharing; facilitating engagement; and preserving partnership flexibility. Sustaining clinical-community partnerships is a dynamic and continuous process requiring significant time, effort, and resources on behalf of partners.