Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: protocol for a systematic review

被引:16
作者
Kaiser, Laura [1 ,2 ]
Bartz, Sina [2 ]
Neugebauer, Edmund A. M. [1 ,3 ]
Pietsch, Barbara [2 ]
Pieper, Dawid [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Witten Herdecke Univ, Witten, Germany
[2] Fed Joint Comm, Berlin, Germany
[3] Brandenburg Med Sch Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
[4] Inst Res Operat Med, Witten, Germany
关键词
Interprofessional; Interdisciplinary; Collaboration; Patient-reported outcomes; Patient-reported experiences; Quality improvement; Quality of care; Inpatient; META-REGRESSION; INTERVENTIONS;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-018-0797-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a core demand of policymakers, funding parties, and health care professionals in practice. Although the causal mechanism from increased IPC to improved patient outcomes seems to be intuitive, there is a lack of credible causal evidence concerning the effects not only on the objective but also on the subjective patient outcomes. The aim of the planned systematic review is to focus on the effect of IPC on patient-reported outcomes and experiences in inpatient care. Methods: A systematic literature review will be undertaken by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and EMBASE. Additional studies will be identified through forward and backward citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Data will be synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of the extracted data. If heterogeneity for some studies and outcomes is sufficiently low, a quantitative meta-analysis of effect sizes and standard errors will be applied. Discussion: The systematic review will synthesize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of IPC and how it is perceived by patients in inpatient care. As the patients' perspective becomes increasingly relevant in the context of quality improvement, the results can help decision-makers in policy- and health care institutions to understand and develop strategies to ensure a high quality of care.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], MEM KOOP GES QUAL SI
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, FRAM ACT INT ED COLL, DOI DOI 10.1128/JVI.76.8.4044
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2013, INT COLL PRACT PRIM
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2002, The data collection checklist
[5]   Measuring team factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments [J].
Brennan, Sue E. ;
Bosch, Marije ;
Buchan, Heather ;
Green, Sally E. .
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE, 2013, 8 :20
[6]  
Choi BCK, 2006, CLIN INVEST MED, V29, P351
[7]  
CIHC, 2010, NAT INT COMP FRAM
[8]   Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance [J].
Craig, Peter ;
Dieppe, Paul ;
Macintyre, Sally ;
Michie, Susan ;
Nazareth, Irwin ;
Petticrew, Mark .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 337 (7676) :979-983
[9]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[10]   Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
BIOMETRICS, 2000, 56 (02) :455-463