Competencies Emergency and Mental Health Nurses Need in Triage in Acute Mental Health Care: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency and mental health nurses are, in many countries, the designated professionals to conduct acute mental health triage. This review aimed to identify competencies these nurses need in major acute health care services such as emergency and accident departments and mental health crisis services for triage for psychiatric patients in crisis. METHODS: For familiarization and construction of an initial thematic framework, we have searched the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, and PsycINFO since 1975. For indexing and sorting, the web-based application Rayyan was used to identify relevant studies. ATLAS.ti 22 was used for data extraction, reviewing, summary, and display using labels relevant for our research questions: knowledge, skills, and attitude. For appraisal of the included studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Scale of the Assessment for Narrative Reviews were used. RESULTS: Thirty one studies were included and were overall rated as adequate, mostly published since 2000. Competencies needed by nurses in AMHT contain a high level of specialist knowledge (risk assessment, de-escalation, triage tools, psychopathology, law/regulations, care pathways), skills (clinical skills, communication, collaboration, coordinating care), and attitude (nonjudgmental, confidence). DISCUSSION: Emergency and mental health nurses require a significant amount of competencies beyond basic nursing education in acute mental health triage. Most described competencies pertain both to knowledge and skills. Less is known about attitude. To integrate the several competencies knowledge, skills, and attitude, clinical reasoning is needed to organize chaos in unpredictable and complex patient situations.

Overview on the target population and methods used in care pathway projects: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that the efficiency and effectiveness of care processes can be improved in all countries. Care pathways (CPs) are proposed as a method to improve the quality of care by reducing variation. During the last decades, CPs have been intensively used in practice. The objective of this study is to examine the study designs for investigating CPs, for which pathologies CPs are used and what the reported indicators to measure the impact of CPs are. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature published from 2015 to 2019 was performed. RESULTS: We identified 286 studies, of which 207 evaluated the impact of CPs, 33 were review articles, 29 studies described the development of a CP, 12 were study protocols and 5 opinion papers. The most frequently reported study design for studying the impact of a CP is pre-posttest (n = 82), followed by cross-sectional studies (n = 50). Oncology, cardiovascular disease and abdominal surgery are the domains with the highest numbers of studies evaluating the impact of CPs. Financial (n = 86), process (n = 76) and clinical indicators (n = 74) are the most frequently reported indicators while service (n = 12) and team indicators (n = 6) are less reported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the relative low number of identified studies compared with the number of CP projects in organisations, we conclude that the CP knowledge is not only found in the literature. We, therefore, argue that (inter)national scientific societies should not only focus on searching and spreading evidence on the content of care but also enhance their knowledge sharing initiatives on the organisation of care processes.

Qualitative Evaluation of the Implementation of a Care Pathway for Colorectal Cancer Surgery.

Colorectal cancer care can be standardized by using enhanced recovery protocols. However, adherence to these protocols varies. Using Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluations, we examined the experience of health care professionals in the implementation of a care pathway for colorectal surgery, by describing the intervention, context, implementation, mechanisms, and outcomes. Based on data from semi-structured interviews, we divided respondents into two groups: those who perceived positive outcomes of the implementation and those who perceived no effect. Respondents who perceived positive outcomes reported clinical leadership, use of feedback, positive effects of standardization, and teamwork as factors contributing to positive perceived outcomes. Respondents who perceived no effect reported a lack of organizational support, as well as challenging collaboration and standardization as mechanisms potentially explaining the poorer perception of outcomes. Multiple implementation activities were used, focusing on competence, behavior, or workplace. Our findings suggest that feedback is an important implementation activity.

Variation in care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: protocol adherence in 12 European hospitals.

PURPOSE: Surgical care for patients with colorectal cancer has become increasingly standardized. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol is a widely accepted structured care method to improve postoperative outcomes of patients after surgery. Despite growing evidence of effectiveness, adherence to the protocol remains challenging in practice. This study was designed to assess the adherence rate in daily practice and examine the relationship between the importance of interventions and adherence rate. METHODS: This international observational, cross-sectional multicenter study was performed in 12 hospitals in four European countries. Patients were included from January 1, 2014. Data was retrospectively collected from the patient record by the local study coordinator. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were included in the study. Protocol adherence was analyzed for both the individual interventions and on patient level. The interventions with the highest adherence were antibiotic prophylaxis (95%), thromboprophylaxis (87%), and measuring body weight at admission (87%). Interventions with the lowest adherence were early mobilization-walking and sitting (9 and 6%, respectively). The adherence ranged between 16 and 75%, with an average of 44%. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the average protocol adherence in clinical practice is 44%. The variation on patient and hospital level is considerable. Only in one patient the adherence rate was >70%. In total, 30% of patients received 50% or more of the key interventions. A solid implementation strategy seems to be needed to improve the uptake of the ERAS pathway. The importance-performance matrix can help in prioritizing the areas for improvement.

Effects of implementing a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery in ten European hospitals: an international multicenter pre-post-test study.

Adherence to evidence-based recommendations is variable and generally low. This is also followed in colorectal surgery, despite the availability of the ERAS® protocol. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of implementing a care pathway for perioperative care in colorectal cancer surgery on outcomes and protocol adherence. So, we performed an international pre-test-post-test multicenter study, performed in ten hospitals in four European countries. The measures used included length of stay, morbidity and mortality, and documentation and adherence on intervention and patient level. Unadjusted pre-test-post-test differences were analyzed following an analysis adjusted for patient-mix variables. Importance-performance analysis was used to map the relationship between importance and performance of individual interventions. In total, 381 patients were included. Length of stay decreased from 12.6 to 10.7 days (p = 0.0230). Time to normal diet and walking also decreased significantly. Protocol adherence improved from 56 to 62% (p < 0.00001). Adherence to individual interventions remained highly variable. Importance-performance analysis showed 30 interventions were scored as important, of which 19 had an adherence < 70%, showing priorities for improvement. Across hospitals, change in protocol adherence ranged from a 13% decrease to a 22% increase. Implementing a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery reduced length of stay, time to normal diet and walking. Documentation and protocol adherence improved after implementing the care pathway. However, not in all participating hospitals protocol adherence improved. Only in 25% of patients, protocol adherence of ≥ 70% was achieved, suggesting a large group is at risk for underuse. Importance-performance analysis showed which interventions are important, but have low adherence, prioritizing improvement efforts.

Protocol for process evaluation of evidence-based care pathways: the case of colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Care pathways are complex interventions, consisting of multiple 'active ingredients', to structure care processes around patient needs. Numerous studies have reported improved outcomes after implementation of care pathways. The structure-process-outcome framework and the context-mechanism-outcome framework both suggest that outcomes can only be achieved through a certain process within a context or structure. To understand how and why care pathways are effective, understanding of both this process and context is necessary. The aim of this article is to propose a study protocol to evaluate the implementation process of evidence-based care pathways, including the influence of the context. This protocol is explained by applying it to the implementation of a colorectal cancer surgery pathway in an international setting. METHODS: The Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluations for complex interventions is used as the basis for the protocol. The key components of process evaluation are intervention, context, implementation, mechanisms of impact and outcomes. In process evaluations, these components are studied using quantitative and qualitative methods. Among them are patient record analysis, questionnaires, on-site visits and interviews. DISCUSSION: To guide our methodological choices, the MRC guidance for process evaluations of complex interventions, and published protocols for process evaluations of complex interventions were used. Our protocol is now tailored for the process evaluation of evidence-based care pathways and provides researchers and clinicians methods and tools, as well as a worked example, that can be used to study the process of care pathway implementation. As a result, healthcare professionals will be informed on context factors and implementation processes that can facilitate the implementation of care pathways, improving quality and effectiveness of care processes.

Development of a model care pathway for adults undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: Evidence-based key interventions and indicators.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: During the last decades, perioperative care for patients with colorectal cancer has shifted towards more standardized care, so-called "enhanced recovery after surgery." Those programs aim to optimize interventions in perioperative care to decrease the rate of postoperative complications, improve patients' recovery, and shorten hospital stay. The purpose of this literature review is to identify, summarize, and operationalize the clinical content of both key interventions and clinical indicators to develop an evidence-based model pathway for surgical patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic search in 3 databases was conducted to identify key interventions (KIs) and indicators to measure the effect of implementation of care pathways. The KIs from the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol were listed and used as framework to identify and match KIs used in the included studies. The Clinical Pathway Compass was used to categorize the indicators. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. The number of KI used in the study protocols ranged from 9 to 20. In total, 33 KIs were identified. Little information was available concerning the implementation of and compliance to the protocol. Length of stay and complication rate are the most common used indicators (used in 15/15 and 14/15 of the studies), followed by 21 other measures. All but one of the included studies reported a reduction in length of stay. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable variation in both number of KIs and indicators as well as operationalization of key interventions, for surgical patients with colorectal cancer documented in literature. Therefore, we summarized the input from different studies and developed an evidence-based model pathway, which can serve as a basis for a local/regional care pathway team to build their own pathway.

Development and validation of a care process self-evaluation tool.

Clinical pathways are used as a method of organizing care processes. Although they are used worldwide, the concept remains unclear, with little understanding of what exactly is being implemented. A recent systematic review revealed that, although a tool exists to score the instrumental qualities of clinical pathways, no tools are available to assess how the clinical pathway influences the process of care. These tools are needed for a better understanding of the impact of clinical pathways on the length of hospital stay and patient outcomes. In this study, a Care Process Self-Evaluation Tool (CPSET), based on the clinical pathway concept, for assessing the organization of the process of care has been developed and tested. Qualitative and quantitative methods, involving 885 professionals and patients, were used in the development and validation. The CPSET is a valid and reliable 29-item instrument for assessing how the process of care is organized. The CPSET has five subscales: patient-focused organization, coordination of care, communication with patients and family, cooperation with primary care and monitoring/follow-up of the care process. The CPSET can be used in the audit and accreditation of care processes and will help managers and clinicians to understand better how care processes are organized.

Better organized care via care pathways: A multicenter study.

An increased need for efficiency and effectiveness in today's healthcare system urges professionals to improve the organization of care. Care pathways are an important tool to achieve this. The overall aim of this study was to analyze if care pathways lead to better organization of care processes. For this, the Care Process Self-Evaluation tool (CPSET) was used to evaluate how healthcare professionals perceive the organization of care processes. Based on information from 2692 health care professionals gathered between November 2007 and October 2011 we audited 261 care processes in 108 organizations. Multilevel analysis was used to compare care processes without and with care pathways and analyze if care pathways led to better organization of care processes. A significant difference between care processes with and without care pathways was found. A care pathway in use led to significant better scores on the overall CPSET scale (p<0.001) and its subscales, "coordination of care" (p<0.001) and "follow-up of care" (p<0.001). Physicians had the highest score on the overall CPSET scale and the five subscales. Care processes organized by care pathways had a 2.6 times higher probability that the care process was well-organized. In around 75% of the cases a care pathway led to better organized care processes. Care processes supported by care pathways were better organized, but not all care pathways were well-organized. Managers can use care pathways to make healthcare professionals more aware of their role in the organization of the care process.

Lack of evidence and standardization in care pathway documents for patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice variation and the subsequent burden on health care quality has been documented for patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI). Reduction of clinical practice variation is possible by increasing guideline adherence. Care pathway documents can increase guideline adherence by implementing evidence-based key interventions and quality indicators in daily practice. AIMS: This study aims to examine guideline adherence of care pathway documents for patients with STEMI. METHODS: Lay-out, size and timeframe of submitted care pathways documents were analysed. Two independent reviewers used a checklist to systematically assess the guideline adherence of care pathway documents. The checklist comprised a set of key interventions and quality indicators extracted from evidence and international guidelines. The checklist distinguished the evidence level for each item and was validated by expert consensus. Results were verified by inviting participating hospitals to provide feedback. RESULTS: Fifteen out of 25 invited hospitals submitted care pathway documents for STEMI. The care pathway documents differed in timeframe, lay-out and size. Analysis of the care pathway documents showed important variation in formalizing adherence to evidence: between hospitals, inclusion of 24 key interventions in care pathway documents varied from 13 to 97%. Inclusion of 11 essential quality indicators varied from 0 to 40%. CONCLUSION: Care pathway documents for patients with STEMI differ considerably in lay-out, timeframe and size. This study showed variation in, and suboptimal inclusion of, evidence-based key interventions and quality indicators in care pathway documents. The use of these care pathway documents might result in suboptimal quality of care for STEMI patients.

[Guideline 'Diagnosis and treatment of varicose veins']. / Richtlijn 'Diagnostiek en behandeling van varices'.

The Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of varicose veins recommends that the 'C' from the North American Venous Forum classification CEAP ('C' = clinical, 'E' = aetiological, 'A' = anatomical, and 'P' = pathophysiological classification ) be recorded in the clinical case notes and that traditional tests as described by Trendelenburg and Perthes be omitted as they are of no use in patients with C2 and C3 varicose veins. In primary C1, C2 and C3 varicose veins that have not previously been treated, a handheld Doppler may be used to exclude reflux. If reflux is found or if in doubt, duplex investigation is necessary. Before any invasive treatment of C2 or C3 varicose veins is scheduled, duplex investigation of the superficial and deep systems is mandatory. In C2 and C3 varicose veins functional investigations such as plethysmography and intravenous pressure measurement are superfluous. With respect to treatment of an insufficient greater saphenous vein, stripping from knee to groin with side branch interruption in the groin is the gold standard in the treatment of C2 and C3 varicose veins. Endovenous techniques such as radio frequency ablation or laser are comparable with the classical stripping method in the treatment of C2 and C3 varicose veins. Insufficient perforating C2 or C3 veins in these patients need no specific treatment. Prior to surgery the entrance level of the lesser saphenous vein into the popliteal vein should be marked with the patient lying in supine position and with the aid of duplex. For patients with side-branches hook needle extraction through mini- incisions is the treatment of choice.

Systematic review: indicators to evaluate effectiveness of clinical pathways for gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review on clinical pathways for gastrointestinal surgery was performed. The aim was to study indicators that are used to evaluate these clinical pathways and to study which effects of clinical pathways are reported. METHODS: A search was performed for the period from January 2000 to November 2006 in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass was used to categorize the indicators reported in literature. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were selected, of which 16 were controlled studies. The studies assessed most frequently complication rates, re-admissions, mortality and length of stay. More specific indicators like time to start defecation and time to return to enteral feeding were reported as well. None of the studies reported adverse effects in any of the domains of the Clinical Pathway Compass. CONCLUSION: Clinical pathways for gastrointestinal surgery can enhance efficiency of care without adverse effects on outcome. Specific indicators to evaluate these clinical pathways are time to return to enteral feeding and time to defecate. Furthermore, additional to complication rates, number of re-admissions, mortality and length of stay, indicators such as the number of re-operations, pain scores and intensive care unit admission can be assessed to monitor effectiveness and patient safety of the clinical pathways.

Appraising and comparing pressure ulcer guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Whilst considerable activity has been related to guideline development for nurses regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management, no attempt has been made to comparatively evaluate these guidelines against some form of quality indicators. AIM: To compare and contrast four national pressure ulcer guidelines, and identify similarities and differences in their quality and content. METHODS: An international comparative appraisal method, using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) instrument, was undertaken to appraise four published pressure ulcer guidelines. Two further domains were added to the AGREE instrument to assess comparability of the guidelines and their perceived contribution to practice. An international group undertook the comparative appraisal. RESULTS: The domain scores for each guideline show some but not total agreement among reviewers. One particular set of guidelines was identified as scoring highest in a majority of AGREE domains. Overall, evidence of variability exists between pressure ulcer guidelines and common areas of development to consider for all guidelines. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results raise many questions concerning the "best" pressure ulcer guideline to use, particularly related to the AGREE scoring. Some notable shortcomings exist in all the pressure ulcer guidelines reviewed and these shortcomings need to be addressed from a quality perspective. However, other issues such as style of reporting and potential contribution to practice might more fully affect choice by practitioners as opposed to guideline developers. CONCLUSIONS: Notable differences exist among the four guidelines that are possibly explained by different approaches to development and also because of different cultural factors and intentions for use. Whilst the AGREE tool identifies the quality of the guideline development process it still requires local engagement with practitioners to determine which guideline should be implemented.