Women's experiences of care and treatment preferences for perinatal depression: a systematic review.

Understanding women's experiences of care, and treatment preferences, is vital for delivering acceptable and useful services to women with perinatal depression. This systematic review synthesises evidence on care and treatment preferences of women with perinatal depression. This qualitative evidence synthesis uses systematic review methodology. Medline, PsychINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from January 2011 to October 2021. Search terms fell into five categories: depression, the perinatal period, treatment preferences, experiences of care and qualitative research. Study quality was assessed and thematic analysis was used to synthesise findings. Thirteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Quality of included papers was of moderate to high quality. Five key themes were identified: women prioritise family needs; perinatal-specific care; when care falls short; professional empathy; and tailored care. Clinicians need to enable mothers to prioritise their own well-being. Service providers should ensure that treatment is tailored to the specifics of the perinatal period, providing specialist advice around medication, and therapy that fits with the demands of caring for a new baby.

Human factors in escalating acute ward care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying how human factors affect clinical staff recognition and managment of the deteriorating ward patient may inform process improvements. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify (1) how human factors affect ward care escalation (2) gaps in the current literature and (3) critique literature methodologies. METHODS: We undertook a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of care escalation studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL from inception to September 2019. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment-Development and Evaluation and Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool to assess study quality. RESULTS: Our search identified 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Confidence in findings was moderate (20 studies) to high (4 studies). In 16 studies, the ability to recognise changes in the patient's condition (soft signals), including skin colour/temperature, respiratory pattern, blood loss, personality change, patient complaint and fatigue, improved the ability to escalate patients. Soft signals were detected through patient assessment (looking/listening/feeling) and not Early Warning Scores (eight studies). In contrast, 13 studies found a high workload and low staffing levels reduced staff's ability to detect patient deterioration and escalate care. In eight studies quantifiable deterioration evidence (Early Warning Scores) facilitated escalation communication, particularly when referrer/referee were unfamiliar. Conversely, escalating concerning non-triggering patients was challenging but achieved by some clinical staff (three studies). Team decision making facilitated the clinical escalation (six studies). CONCLUSIONS: Early Warning Scores have clinical benefits but can sometimes impede escalation in patients not meeting the threshold. Staff use other factors (soft signals) not captured in Early Warning Scores to escalate care. The literature supports strategies that improve the escalation process such as good patient assessment skills. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104745.

Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems: Metrics and Evaluation Methods for eHealth Systems.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic healthcare records have become central to patient care. Evaluation of new systems include a variety of usability evaluation methods or usability metrics (often referred to interchangeably as usability components or usability attributes). This study reviews the breadth of usability evaluation methods, metrics, and associated measurement techniques that have been reported to assess systems designed for hospital staff to assess inpatient clinical condition. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Open Grey from 1986 to 2019. For included studies, we recorded usability evaluation methods or usability metrics as appropriate, and any measurement techniques applied to illustrate these. We classified and described all usability evaluation methods, usability metrics, and measurement techniques. Study quality was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 1336 studies. After abstract screening, 130 full texts were reviewed. In the 51 included studies 11 distinct usability evaluation methods were identified. Within these usability evaluation methods, seven usability metrics were reported. The most common metrics were ISO9241-11 and Nielsen's components. An additional "usefulness" metric was reported in almost 40% of included studies. We identified 70 measurement techniques used to evaluate systems. Overall study quality was reflected in a mean modified Downs and Black checklist score of 6.8/10 (range 1-9) 33% studies classified as "high-quality" (scoring eight or higher), 51% studies "moderate-quality" (scoring 6-7), and the remaining 16% (scoring below five) were "low-quality." CONCLUSION: There is little consistency within the field of electronic health record systems evaluation. This review highlights the variability within usability methods, metrics, and reporting. Standardized processes may improve evaluation and comparison electronic health record systems and improve their development and implementation.

How human factors affect escalation of care: a protocol for a qualitative evidence synthesis of studies.

INTRODUCTION: Failure to rescue is defined as mortality after complications during hospital care. Incidence ranges 10.9%-13.3% and several national reports such as National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes and Death and National Institute of Clinical Excellence CG 50 highlight failure to rescue as a significant problem for safe patient care.To avoid failure to rescue events, there must be successful escalation of care. Studies indicate that human factors such as situational awareness, team working, communication and a culture promoting safety contribute to avoidance of failure to rescue events. Understanding human factors is essential to developing work systems that mitigate barriers and facilitate prompt escalation of care. This qualitative evidence synthesis will identify and synthesise what is known about the human factors that affect escalation of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and CINAHL, between database inception and 2018, for studies describing human factors affecting failure to rescue and/or care escalation. A search strategy was developed by two researchers and a medical librarian. Only studies exploring in-hospital (ward) populations using qualitative data collection methods will be included. Screening will be conducted by two researchers. We are likely to undertake a thematic synthesis, using the Thomas and Harden framework. Selected studies will be assessed for quality, rigour and limitations. Two researchers will extract and thematically synthesise codes using a piloted data extraction tool to develop analytical themes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The qualitative evidence synthesis will use available published literature and no ethical approval is required. This synthesis will be limited by the quality of studies, rigour and reproducibility of study findings. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, publicised at conferences and on social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104745.