The impact of electronic and self-rostering systems on healthcare organisations and healthcare workers: A mixed-method systematic review.

AIM: To synthesise evidence from studies that explored the impact of electronic and self-rostering systems to schedule staff on healthcare organisations and healthcare workers. DESIGN: Mixed-method systematic review. METHODS: Studies were screened by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using standardised data extraction tables. The quality of studies was assessed, and parallel-results convergent synthesis was conducted. DATA SOURCES: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES were searched on January 3, 2023. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included (10 quantitative descriptive studies, seven non-randomised studies and one qualitative study). Studies examined two rostering interventions including self-rostering (n = 12) and electronic rostering (n = 6). It was found that the implementation of electronic and self-rostering systems for staff scheduling impacted positively on both, healthcare workers and healthcare organisations. Benefits included enhanced roster efficiency, staff satisfaction, greater control and empowerment, improved work-life balance, higher staff retention and reduced turnover, decreased absence rates and enhanced healthcare efficiency. However, self-rostering was found to be less equitable than fixed rostering, was associated with increased overtime, and correlated with a higher frequency of staff requests for shift changes. CONCLUSION: The impact of electronic and self-rostering systems to schedule staff on healthcare organisations and healthcare workers' outcomes was predominantly positive. Further randomised controlled trials and longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate the long-term impact of various rostering systems, including electronic and self-rostering systems. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTHCARE: Rostering is a multifaceted responsibility for healthcare administrators, impacting patient care quality, workforce planning and healthcare expenditure. IMPACT: Given that healthcare staffing costs constitute a substantial portion of global healthcare expenditure, efficient and strategic resource management, inclusive of healthcare staff rostering, is imperative. REPORTING METHOD: The 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

High flow nasal cannula versus noninvasive ventilation in the treatment of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can lead to acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF), often treated using noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Emerging research suggests the potential utility of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for AHRF. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of HFNC versus NIV on AHRF management. A search of electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Academic Search Complete), web sources, and trial registries was last conducted on 9 February 2023. Quality and risk of bias assessments were conducted. Meta-analyses were used to synthesise data. Seven randomised controlled trials were included. No statistically significant differences between HFNC and NIV were found within the following outcomes of interest: (i) correction of pCO2: standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.34 to 0.02), p = 0.08; (ii) correction of pH: SMD = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.14), p = 0.59; (iii) correction of pO2: SMD = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.09), p = 0.22; (iv) intubation rates: risk ratio (RR) = 0.87, 95% CI (0.41 to 1.82), p = 0.71; (v) mortality rates: RR = 0.85, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.56), p = 0.61; and (vi) treatment switch: RR = 1.30, 95% CI (0.43 to 3.94), p = 0.64. More controlled trials with large sample sizes are required to investigate the management of AHRF of various aetiologies. HFNC may be used as a final exhaustive measure for COPD-related AHRF where NIV is not tolerated, and when it is not clinically indicated to extend to endotracheal intubation.