Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings.
There is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns.
To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response.
Seven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice.
We included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management. While all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills. We had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients' knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients' knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care. Low-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care. We are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies.
Our review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.
Mackintosh NJ
，Davis RE
，Easter A
，Rayment-Jones H
，Sevdalis N
，Wilson S
，Adams M
，Sandall J
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.
People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003, 2006 and 2014.
To assess the effects of conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing FI and constipation in people with a neurological disease or injury affecting the central nervous system.
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 March 2023), which includes searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP as well as handsearching of journals and conference proceedings; and all reference lists of relevant articles.
We included randomised, quasi-randomised (where allocation is not strictly random), cross-over and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any type of conservative, physical or surgical intervention against placebo, usual care or no intervention for the management of FI and constipation in people with central neurological disease or injury.
At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in eligible trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and independently extracted data from the included trials using a range of prespecified outcome measures. We produced summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
We included 25 studies with 1598 participants. The studies were generally at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention. Half of the included studies were also at high risk of bias in terms of selective reporting. Outcomes were often reported heterogeneously across studies, making it difficult to pool data. We did not find enough evidence to be able to analyse the effects of interventions on individual central neurological diseases. Additionally, very few studies reported on the primary outcomes of self-reported improvement in FI or constipation, or Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score. Conservative interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Thirteen studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included assessment-based nursing, holistic nursing, probiotics, psyllium, faecal microbiota transplantation, and a stepwise protocol of increasingly invasive evacuation methods. Conservative interventions may result in a large improvement in faecal incontinence (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.47 to -0.23; 3 studies; n = 410; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.80 as a large effect. It was not possible to pool all data from studies that assessed improvement in constipation, but the evidence suggested that conservative interventions may improve constipation symptoms (data not pooled; 8 studies; n = 612; low-certainty evidence). Conservative interventions may lead to a reduction in mean time taken on bowel care (data not pooled; 5 studies; n = 526; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of conservative interventions on condition-specific quality of life and adverse events. Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score was not reported. Physical therapy compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Twelve studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included massage therapy, standing, osteopathic manipulative treatment, electrical stimulation, transanal irrigation, and conventional physical therapy with visceral mobilisation. Physical therapies may make little to no difference to self-reported faecal continence assessed using the St Mark's Faecal Incontinence Score, where the minimally important difference is five, or the Cleveland Constipation Score (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.29; 3 studies; n = 155; low-certainty evidence). Physical therapies may result in a moderate improvement in constipation symptoms (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.14; 9 studies; n = 431; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect. However, physical therapies may make little to no difference in Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score as the minimally important difference for this tool is 3 (MD -1.94, 95% CI -3.36 to -0.51; 7 studies; n = 358; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of physical therapies on the time spent on bowel care, condition-specific quality of life and adverse effects (all very low-certainty evidence). Surgical interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo No studies were found for surgical interventions that met the inclusion criteria for this review.
There remains little research on this common and, for patients, very significant issue of bowel management. The available evidence is almost uniformly of low methodological quality. The clinical significance of some of the research findings presented here is difficult to interpret, not least because each intervention has only been addressed in individual trials, against control rather than compared against each other, and the interventions are very different from each other. Understanding whether there is a clinically-meaningful difference from the results of available trials is largely hampered by the lack of uniform outcome measures. This is due to an absence of core outcome sets, and development of these needs to be a research priority to allow studies to be compared directly. Some studies used validated constipation, incontinence or condition-specific measures; however, others used unvalidated analogue scales to report effectiveness. Some studies did not use any patient-reported outcomes and focused on physiological outcome measures, which is of relatively limited significance in terms of clinical implementation. There was evidence in favour of some conservative interventions, but these findings need to be confirmed by larger, well-designed controlled trials, which should include evaluation of the acceptability of the intervention to patients and the effect on their quality of life.
Todd CL
，Johnson EE
，Stewart F
，Wallace SA
，Bryant A
，Woodward S
，Norton C
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
