Acute outreach service to nursing homes: A systematic review with GRADE and triple aim approach.

BACKGROUND: People living in nursing homes face the risk of visiting the emergency department (ED). Outreach services are developing to prevent unnecessary transfers to ED. AIMS: We aim to assess the performance of acute care services provided to people living in nursing homes or long-term homecare, focusing on ED transfer prevention, safety, cost-effectiveness and experiences. MATERIALS & METHODS: This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed and examined acute outreach services dedicated to delivering care to people in nursing homes or long-term homecare. The service models could also have preventive components. The databases searched were Scopus and CINAHL. In addition, Robins-I and SIGN checklists were used. The primary outcomes of prevented ED transfers or hospitalisations and the composite outcome of adverse events (mortality/Emergency Medical Service or ED visit after outreach service contact related to the same clinical condition) were graded with GRADE. RESULTS: Fifteen relevant original studies were found-all were observational and focused on nursing homes. The certainty of evidence for acute outreach services with preventive components to prevent ED transfers or hospitalisations was low. Stakeholders were satisfied with these services. The certainty of evidence for solely acute outreach services to prevent ED transfers or hospitalisations was very low and inconclusive. Reporting of adverse events was inconsistent, certainty of evidence for adverse events was low. CONCLUSION: Published data might support adopting acute outreach services with preventive components for people living in nursing homes to reduce ED transfers, hospitalisations and possibly costs. If an outreach service is started, it is recommended that a cluster-randomised or quasi-experimental research design be incorporated to assess the effectiveness and safety of the service. More evidence is also needed on cost-effectiveness and stakeholders' satisfaction. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020211048, date of registration: 25.09.2020.

Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of cancer, preventable death, and disability. Smoking cessation can increase life expectancy by nearly a decade if achieved in the third or fourth decades of life. Various stop smoking interventions are available including pharmacotherapies, electronic cigarettes, behavioural support, and alternative therapies. This protocol outlines an evidence review which will evaluate the benefits and harms of stop smoking interventions in adults. METHODS: The evidence review will consist of two stages. First, an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions delivered in or referred from the primary care setting will be conducted. The second stage will involve updating a systematic review on electronic cigarettes identified in the overview; randomized controlled trials will be considered for outcomes relating to benefits while randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and comparative observational studies will be considered for evaluating harms. Search strategies will be developed and peer-reviewed by medical information specialists. The search strategy for the updated review on e-cigarettes will be developed using that of the candidate systematic review. The MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases will be searched as of 2008 for the overview of reviews and from the last search date of the selected review for the updated review. Organizational websites and trial registries will be searched for unpublished or ongoing reviews/studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements regarding full-text screening and data extraction will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. The methodological quality of systematic reviews, risk of bias of randomized and non-randomized trials, and methodological quality of cohort studies will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool, respectively. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The evidence review will evaluate the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions for adults. Findings will be used to inform a national tobacco cessation guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099691, CRD42018099692).

2017 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Summary.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 pediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritized and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

2017 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Summary.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 paediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritised and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

Development and Validation of Quality Criteria for Providing Patient- and Family-centered Injury Care.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the content validity of quality criteria for providing patient- and family-centered injury care. BACKGROUND: Quality criteria have been developed for clinical injury care, but not patient- and family-centered injury care. METHODS: Using a modified Research AND Development Corporation (RAND)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methodology, a panel of 16 patients, family members, injury and quality of care experts serially rated and revised criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care identified from patient and family focus groups. The criteria were then sent to 384 verified trauma centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 46 criteria were rated and revised by the panel over 4 rounds of review producing 14 criteria related to clinical care (n = 4; transitions of care, pain management, patient safety, provider competence), communication (n = 3; information for patients/families; communication of discharge plans to patients/families, communication between hospital and community providers), holistic care (n = 4; patient hygiene, kindness and respect, family access to patient, social and spiritual support) and end-of-life care (n = 3; decision making, end-of-life care, family follow-up). Medical directors, managers, or coordinators representing 254 trauma centers (66% response rate) rated 12 criteria to be important (95% of responses) for patient- and family-centered injury care. Fewer centers rated family access to the patient (80%) and family follow-up after patient death (65%) to be important criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen-candidate quality criteria for patient- and family-centered injury care were developed and shown to have content validity. These may be used to guide quality improvement practices.