RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesise interventions and implementation strategies to optimise patient flow, addressing admission delays, discharge delays, and after-hours discharges in adult intensive care units. METHODS: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Five electronic databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, Emcare, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, were searched from 2007 to 2023 to identify articles describing interventions to enhance patient flow practices in adult intensive care units. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. All data was synthesised using a narrative approach. SETTING: Adult intensive care units. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, mainly comprising quality improvement projects (n = 3) or before-and-after studies (n = 4). Intervention types included changing workflow processes, introducing decision support tools, publishing quality indicator data, utilising outreach nursing services, and promoting multidisciplinary communication. Various implementation strategies were used, including one-on-one training, in-person knowledge transfer, digital communication, and digital data synthesis and display. Most studies (n = 6) reported a significant improvement in at least one intensive care process-related outcome, although fewer studies specifically reported improvements in admission delays (0/0), discharge delays (1/2), and after-hours discharge (2/4). Two out of six studies reported significant improvements in patient-related outcomes after implementing the intervention. CONCLUSION: Organisational-level strategies, such as protocols and alert systems, were frequently employed to improve patient flow within ICUs, while healthcare professional-level strategies to enhance communication were less commonly used. While most studies improved ICU processes, only half succeeded in significantly reducing discharge delays and/or after-hours discharges, and only a third reported improved patient outcomes, highlighting the need for more effective interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings of this review can guide the development of evidence-based, targeted, and tailored interventions aimed at improving patient and organisational outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine key priorities for critical care nursing research in three Australian regional public hospitals, representing the shared priorities of healthcare professionals and patient representatives. METHODS: A three phase priority setting study, including consensus methods (nominal group), survey, qualitative interviews and focus groups were conducted between May 2021 and March 2022. Healthcare professionals and patient representatives from critical care units in regional public hospitals in Australia participated. A patient representative contributed to research design and co-authored this paper. RESULTS: In phase one, 29 research topics were generated. In phase two, during a nominal group ranking process, the top 5 priority areas for each site were identified. In the final phase, three themes from focus groups and interviews included patient flow through intensive care, patient care through intensive care journey and intensive care patient recovery. CONCLUSION: Identifying context specific research priorities through a priority setting exercise provides insight into the topics that are important to healthcare professionals and to patients in critical care. The top research priorities for nursing research in critical care in regional Australian hospitals include patient flow, patient recovery, and evidence based patient care through the intensive care journey, such as delirium management, pain and sedation, and mobilisation. These shared priorities will be used to guide future nursing research in critical care over the next 3-5 years. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: The method we used in identifying the research priorities can be used by other researchers and clinicians; close collaboration among researchers and clinicians will be beneficial for practice improvement; and how we can be reassured that our practice is evidence based is worthy of attention.