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).