How does communication affect patient safety? Protocol for a systematic review and logic model.

INTRODUCTION: One in 10 patients are harmed in healthcare, more than three million deaths occur annually worldwide due to patient safety incidents, and the economic burden of patient safety incidents accounts for 15% of hospital expenditure. Poor communication between patients and practitioners is a significant contributor to patient safety incidents. This study aims to evaluate the extent to which patient safety is affected by communication and to provide a logic model that illustrates how communication impacts patient safety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies, reported in any language, that quantify the effects of practitioner and patient communication on patient safety. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsychINfo, CENTRAL, Scopus and ProQuest theses and dissertations from 2013 to 7 February 2024. We will also hand-search references of included studies. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for non-randomised studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2 (RoB2) for randomised controlled trials. If appropriate, results will be pooled with summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); otherwise, we will conduct a narrative synthesis. We will organise our findings by healthcare discipline, type of communication and type of patient safety incident. We will produce a logic model to illustrate how communication impacts patient safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require formal ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated through international conferences, news and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024507578.

Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL and Scopus were searched from database inception until 31 May 2023 to identify systematic reviews of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. Ancestry searching and citation chasing were also conducted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews V.2 tool was used to appraise the quality of the included reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and the evidence of effectiveness for each intervention was rated. RESULTS: 13 reviews (with 94 independent studies and 17 616 students) were included. The reviews covered individual-level and curriculum-level interventions. Individual interventions included mindfulness (n=12), hypnosis (n=6), mental health programmes (n=7), yoga (n=4), cognitive and behavioural interventions (n=1), mind-sound technology (n=1), music-based interventions (n=1), omega-3 supplementation (n=1), electroacupuncture (n=1) and osteopathic manipulative treatment (n=1). The curriculum-level interventions included pass/fail grading (n=4), problem-based curriculum (n=2) and multicomponent curriculum reform (n=2). Most interventions were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish effectiveness. Eleven reviews were rated as having 'critically low' quality, and two reviews were rated as having 'low' quality. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level interventions (mindfulness and mental health programmes) and curriculum-level interventions (pass/fail grading) can improve medical student well-being. These conclusions should be tempered by the low quality of the evidence. Further high-quality research is required to explore additional effective interventions to enhance medical student well-being and the most efficient ways to implement and combine these for maximum benefit.

The Effect of Practitioner Empathy on Patient Satisfaction : A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners who deliver enhanced empathy may improve patient satisfaction with care. Patient satisfaction is associated with positive patient outcomes ranging from medication adherence to survival. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of health care practitioner empathy on patient satisfaction, using a systematic review of randomized trials. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus to 23 October 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials published in any language that evaluated the effect of empathy on improving patient satisfaction as measured on a validated patient satisfaction scale. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and strength-of-evidence assessments were done by 2 independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen eligible randomized trials (80 practitioners; 1986 patients) were included in the analysis. Five studies had high risk of bias, and 9 had some concerns about bias. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of geographic locations (North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa), settings (hospital and primary care), practitioner types (family and hospital physicians, anesthesiologists, nurses, psychologists, and caregivers), and type of randomization (individual patient or clustered by practitioner). Although all trials suggested a positive change in patient satisfaction, inadequate reporting hindered the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the overall effect size. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity in the way that empathy was delivered and patient satisfaction was measured and incomplete reporting leading to concerns about the certainty of the underpinning evidence. CONCLUSION: Various empathy interventions have been studied to improve patient satisfaction. Development, testing, and reporting of high-quality studies within well-defined contexts is needed to optimize empathy interventions that increase patient satisfaction. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Stoneygate Trust. (PROSPERO: CRD42023412981).

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures to Space Motion Sickness: a systematic review.

Introduction: Space Motion Sickness (SMS) is a syndrome that affects around 70% of astronauts and includes symptoms of nausea, dizziness, fatigue, vertigo, headaches, vomiting, and cold sweating. Consequences range from discomfort to severe sensorimotor and cognitive incapacitation, which might cause potential problems for mission-critical tasks and astronauts and cosmonauts' well-being. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures have been proposed to mitigate SMS. However, their effectiveness has not been systematically evaluated. Here we present the first systematic review of published peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures to SMS. Methods: We performed a double-blind title and abstract screening using the online Rayyan collaboration tool for systematic reviews, followed by a full-text screening. Eventually, only 23 peer-reviewed studies underwent data extraction. Results: Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological countermeasures can help mitigate SMS symptoms. Discussion: No definitive recommendation can be given regarding the superiority of any particular countermeasure approach. Importantly, there is considerable heterogeneity in the published research methods, lack of a standardized assessment approach, and small sample sizes. To allow for consistent comparisons between SMS countermeasures in the future, standardized testing protocols for spaceflight and ground-based analogs are needed. We believe that the data should be made openly available, given the uniqueness of the environment in which it is collected. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021244131.

Why might medical student empathy change throughout medical school? a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Several studies suggest that medical student empathy declines throughout medical school. However, no studies have synthesised the evidence regarding why empathy declines. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies investigating why student empathy may change throughout medical school. METHODS: We included any qualitative study that investigated why empathy might change during medical school. We searched the Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, ERIC, and APA PsycInfo databases for relevant studies. All databases were searched from their inception to 18 July 2022. We also searched the reference lists of the included studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. Overall confidence in our results was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. We used thematic methods to synthesise our findings. RESULTS: Our searches yielded 2523 records, and 16 studies involving a total of 771 students were eligible for analysis. Most studies (n = 11) were from Europe or North America. The descriptive themes and sub-themes were identified for each study. Increased complexity in patients and their diseases, together with the 'hidden curriculum' (including a stressful workload, prioritisation of biomedical knowledge, and (sometimes) poor role models), led to student adaptations, such as cynicism and desensitisation. Students' prior lives and professional experiences appeared to exacerbate the decline in empathy. However, there were bias concerns for most of the included studies. DISCUSSION: Many of the included studies included were small, and some did not include demographic participant data. Given the likely benefits of providing empathic care for patients and practitioners, medical education interventions should focus on developing an 'empathic hidden curriculum' that mitigates the decline in medical student empathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A protocol for this systematic review was submitted for registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28 July 2022 (registration number CRD42022347856).

Why might medical student empathy change throughout medical school? Protocol for a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Several studies suggest that medical student empathy declines throughout medical school. However, no studies have systematically investigated why. The objective of our proposed review is to conduct a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies investigating the reasons empathy may change throughout medical school. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We have searched MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, ERIC and APA PsycINFO for relevant studies. We will also search reference lists of included studies and contact experts to identify additional studies. We will include any qualitative study investigating the reasons why empathy changes throughout medical school. We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. We will use thematic analysis to synthesise our results. For all included studies, we will summarise the main characteristics including the number of participants, medical school year, country and gender. In our discussion, we will summarise the limitations of the evidence (including the risk of bias and inconsistency), and provide a general interpretation of the results and important implications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not require ethical approval since no original data will be collected. The results of this review will be published through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Additionally, this review will inform changes to the enhanced empathy curriculum at the Leicester Medical School.

Primary medical care continuity and patient mortality: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A 2018 review into continuity of care with doctors in primary and secondary care concluded that mortality rates are lower with higher continuity of care. AIM: This association was studied further to elucidate its strength and how causative mechanisms may work, specifically in the field of primary medical care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of studies published in English or French from database and source inception to July 2019. METHOD: Original empirical quantitative studies of any design were included, from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, and the library catalogue of the New York Academy of Medicine for unpublished studies. Selected studies included patients who were seen wholly or mostly in primary care settings, and quantifiable measures of continuity and mortality. RESULTS: Thirteen quantitative studies were identified that included either cross-sectional or retrospective cohorts with variable periods of follow-up. Twelve of these measured the effect on all-cause mortality; a statistically significant protective effect of greater care continuity was found in nine, absent in two, and in one effects ranged from increased to decreased mortality depending on the continuity measure. The remaining study found a protective association for coronary heart disease mortality. Improved clinical responsibility, physician knowledge, and patient trust were suggested as causative mechanisms, although these were not investigated. CONCLUSION: This review adds reduced mortality to the demonstrated benefits of there being better continuity in primary care for patients. Some patients may benefit more than others. Further studies should seek to elucidate mechanisms and those patients who are likely to benefit most. Despite mounting evidence of its broad benefit to patients, relationship continuity in primary care is in decline - decisive action is required from policymakers and practitioners to counter this.

Levels of detection of hypertension in primary medical care and interventions to improve detection: a systematic review of the evidence since 2000.

OBJECTIVES: In England, many hypertensives are not detected by primary medical care. Higher detection is associated with lower premature mortality. We aimed to summarise recent evidence on detection and interventions to improve detection in order to inform policies to improve care. DESIGN: Data sources: systematic review of articles published since 2000. Searches of Medline and Embase were undertaken. Eligibility criteria: published in English, any study design, the setting was general practice and studies included patients aged 18 or over. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: screening schemes, studies in primary care settings other than general practice, discussion or comment pieces. PARTICIPANTS: adult patients of primary medical care services. SYNTHESIS: study heterogeneity precluded a statistical synthesis, and papers were described in summary tables. RESULTS: Seventeen quantitative and one qualitative studies were included. Detection rates varied by gender and ethnic group, but longitudinal studies indicated an improvement in detection over time. Patient socioeconomic factors did not influence detection, but living alone was associated with lower detection. Few health system factors were associated with detection, but in two studies higher numbers of general practitioners per 1000 population were associated with higher detection. Three studies investigated interventions to improve detection, but none showed evidence of effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: The search was limited to studies published from 2000, in English. There were few studies of interventions to improve detection, and a meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Levels of detection of hypertension by general practices may be improving, but large numbers of people with hypertension remain undetected. Improvement in detection is therefore required, but guidance for primary medical care is not provided by the few studies of interventions included in this review. Primary care teams should continue to use low-cost, practical approaches to detecting hypertension until evidence from new studies of interventions to improve detection is available.