Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review

<h4>Introduction</h4> Integrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They have the potential to enhance continuity of care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork and staff educati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Keng Siang Lee, Stefan Yordanov, Daniel Stubbs, Ellie Edlmann, Alexis Joannides, Benjamin Davies
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328336/?tool=EBI
id doaj-34d71da798fa40eda7a10536067e39a4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-34d71da798fa40eda7a10536067e39a42021-08-06T04:31:11ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032021-01-01168Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic reviewKeng Siang LeeStefan YordanovDaniel StubbsEllie EdlmannAlexis JoannidesBenjamin Davies<h4>Introduction</h4> Integrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They have the potential to enhance continuity of care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork and staff education. In order to inform the development of neurosurgical ICPs in the future, we performed a systematic review to aggregate examples of neurosurgical ICP, to consider their impact and design features that may be associated with their success. <h4>Methods</h4> Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for relevant literature published from date of inception to July 2020. Primary studies reporting details of neurosurgical ICPs, across all pathologies and age groups were eligible for inclusion. Patient outcomes in each case were also recorded. <h4>Results</h4> Twenty-four studies were included in our final dataset, from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Korea, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, and a number of sub-specialties. 3 for cerebrospinal fluid diversion, 1 functional, 2 neurovascular, 1 neuro-oncology, 2 paediatric, 2 skull base, 10 spine, 1 for trauma, 2 miscellaneous (other craniotomies). All were single centre studies with no regional or national examples. Thirteen were cohort studies while 11 were case series which lacked a control group. Effectiveness was typically evaluated using hospital or professional performance metrics, such as length of stay (n = 11, 45.8%) or adverse events (n = 17, 70.8%) including readmission, surgical complications and mortality. Patient reported outcomes, including satisfaction, were evaluated infrequently (n = 3, 12.5%). All studies reported a positive impact. No study reported how the design of the ICP was informed by published literature or other methods <h4>Conclusions</h4> ICPs have been successfully developed across numerous neurosurgical sub-specialities. However, there is often a lack of clarity over their design and weaknesses in their evaluation, including an underrepresentation of the patient’s perspective.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328336/?tool=EBI
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Keng Siang Lee
Stefan Yordanov
Daniel Stubbs
Ellie Edlmann
Alexis Joannides
Benjamin Davies
spellingShingle Keng Siang Lee
Stefan Yordanov
Daniel Stubbs
Ellie Edlmann
Alexis Joannides
Benjamin Davies
Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review
PLoS ONE
author_facet Keng Siang Lee
Stefan Yordanov
Daniel Stubbs
Ellie Edlmann
Alexis Joannides
Benjamin Davies
author_sort Keng Siang Lee
title Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review
title_short Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review
title_full Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review
title_fullStr Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review
title_sort integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: a systematic review
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2021-01-01
description <h4>Introduction</h4> Integrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They have the potential to enhance continuity of care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork and staff education. In order to inform the development of neurosurgical ICPs in the future, we performed a systematic review to aggregate examples of neurosurgical ICP, to consider their impact and design features that may be associated with their success. <h4>Methods</h4> Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for relevant literature published from date of inception to July 2020. Primary studies reporting details of neurosurgical ICPs, across all pathologies and age groups were eligible for inclusion. Patient outcomes in each case were also recorded. <h4>Results</h4> Twenty-four studies were included in our final dataset, from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Korea, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, and a number of sub-specialties. 3 for cerebrospinal fluid diversion, 1 functional, 2 neurovascular, 1 neuro-oncology, 2 paediatric, 2 skull base, 10 spine, 1 for trauma, 2 miscellaneous (other craniotomies). All were single centre studies with no regional or national examples. Thirteen were cohort studies while 11 were case series which lacked a control group. Effectiveness was typically evaluated using hospital or professional performance metrics, such as length of stay (n = 11, 45.8%) or adverse events (n = 17, 70.8%) including readmission, surgical complications and mortality. Patient reported outcomes, including satisfaction, were evaluated infrequently (n = 3, 12.5%). All studies reported a positive impact. No study reported how the design of the ICP was informed by published literature or other methods <h4>Conclusions</h4> ICPs have been successfully developed across numerous neurosurgical sub-specialities. However, there is often a lack of clarity over their design and weaknesses in their evaluation, including an underrepresentation of the patient’s perspective.
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328336/?tool=EBI
work_keys_str_mv AT kengsianglee integratedcarepathwaysinneurosurgeryasystematicreview
AT stefanyordanov integratedcarepathwaysinneurosurgeryasystematicreview
AT danielstubbs integratedcarepathwaysinneurosurgeryasystematicreview
AT ellieedlmann integratedcarepathwaysinneurosurgeryasystematicreview
AT alexisjoannides integratedcarepathwaysinneurosurgeryasystematicreview
AT benjamindavies integratedcarepathwaysinneurosurgeryasystematicreview
_version_ 1721219325997613056