Search

Objective: This article addresses the persistent challenge of Delayed Hospital Discharge (DHD) and aims to provide a comprehensive overview, synthesis, and actionable, sustainable plan based on the synthesis of the systematic review articles spanning the past 24 years. Our research aims to comprehensively examine DHD, identifying its primary causes and emphasizing the significance of effective communication and management in healthcare settings. Methods: We conducted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) method for synthesizing findings from 23 review papers published over the last two decades, encompassing over 700 studies. In addition, we employed a practical and comprehensive framework to tackle DHD. Rooted in Linderman's model, our approach focused on continuous process improvement (CPI), which highlights senior management commitment, technical/administrative support, and social/transitional care. Our proposed CPI method comprised several stages: planning, implementation, data analysis, and adaptation, all contributing to continuous improvement in healthcare delivery. This method provided valuable insights and recommendations for addressing DHD challenges. Findings: Our DHD analysis revealed crucial insights across multiple dimensions. Firstly, examining causes and interventions uncovered issues such as limited discharge destinations, signaling unsustainable solutions, and inefficient care coordination. The second aspect explored the patient and caregiver experience, emphasizing challenges linked to staff uncertainty and negative physical environments, with notable attention to the underexplored area of caregiver experience. The third theme explored organizational and individual factors, including cognitive impairment and socioeconomic influences. The findings emphasized the importance of incorporating patients' data, recognizing its complexity and current avoidance. Finally, the role of transitional and social care and financial strategies was scrutinized, emphasizing the need for multicomponent, context‐specific interventions to address DHD effectively. Conclusion: This study addresses gaps in the literature, challenges prevailing solutions, and offers practical pathways for reducing DHD, contributing significantly to healthcare quality and patient outcomes. The synthesis introduces the vital CPI stage, enhancing Linderman's work and providing a pragmatic framework to eradicate delayed discharge. Future efforts will address practitioner consultations to enhance perspectives and further enrich the study. Patient or Public Contribution: Our scoping review synthesizes and analyzes existing systematic review articles and emphasizes offering practical, actionable solutions. While our approach does not directly engage patients, it strategically focuses on extracting insights from the literature to create a CPI framework. This unique aspect is intentionally designed to yield tangible benefits for patients, service users, caregivers, and the public. Our actionable recommendations aim to improve hospital discharge processes for better healthcare outcomes and experiences. This detailed analysis goes beyond theoretical considerations and provides a practical guide to improve healthcare practices and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patient‐reported measures that assess satisfaction and experience are increasingly utilised in healthcare sectors, including the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. This scoping review identifies how and to what extent people accessing AOD services have been involved in the development of satisfaction and experience measures to date. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar were searched. Included papers described the development and/or implementation of a multiple‐item measure of patient‐reported experience or satisfaction specifically for people accessing AOD treatment and/or harm reduction programmes. If there was more than one paper, key papers were chosen that described each measure. The method of development, including service user involvement, was assessed against a framework generated for this review. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. Results: Thirty measures—23 satisfaction and 7 experience—were identified. Sixteen measures reported some level of involvement by people accessing AOD services in their development, although, for most measures, at a relatively low level. This involvement increased over the time span of the review becoming more frequent in later years. Only four measures were developed for use in harm reduction‐specific settings, and fewer than half reported undertaking analysis of underlying scale structure and constructs. Conclusion: Several gaps could be addressed to enhance the measurement of patient‐centred care in the AOD sector, including: developing experience measures for use in harm reduction settings and across various AOD settings in a service system; improved reporting of psychometric properties of these measures and increasing commitment to the meaningful involvement of AOD service users in measure development. Patient or Public Contribution: This scoping review is part of a broader codesign project that involves a partnership between the peak organisation for AOD services and the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. These organisations are working closely together to engage with AOD service users, service providers and policy makers in this codesign project. As such, the Executive Director of the peer‐based AOD consumer organisation is involved as a co‐author of this scoping review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Youth engagement in research, wherein youth are involved in the research beyond mere participation as human subjects, is growing and becoming more popular as an approach to research. However, systematic and deliberate theory‐building has been limited. We conducted a systematic review to identify and synthesize theories, models and frameworks that have been applied in the engagement of youth in health research, including mental health. Methods: Six academic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL) and the grey literature were searched for relevant studies. Citation tracking was conducted through ancestry and descendancy searches. The final search was completed on 7 February 2023. Findings were summarized in a narrative synthesis informed by principles of hermeneutic analysis and interpretation. Reporting of results is in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses) 2020 Statement. Results: Of the 1156 records identified, 16 papers were included, from which we extracted named theories (n = 6), implicit theories (n = 5) and models and frameworks (n = 20) used for youth engagement in health research. We identified theories that were explicitly stated and surfaced theories that were more implicitly suggested. Models and frameworks were organized into four categories based on their principal features: power‐focused (n = 8), process‐focused (n = 7), impact‐focused (n = 3) and equity‐focused (n = 2). Few frameworks (n = 5) were empirically tested in health‐related research. Conclusions: The state of theoretical development in youth engagement in research is still evolving. In this systematic review, we identified theories, models and frameworks used for youth engagement in health research. Findings from this systematic review offer a range of resources to those who seek to develop and strengthen youth engagement in their own research. Patient or Public Contribution: Youth engaged as patients in the research were not involved in planning or conducting the systematic review. However, youth researchers in their early to mid‐20s led the planning, implementation and interpretation of the review. As part of subsequent work, we formed a youth advisory board to develop a youth‐led knowledge mobilization intended for an audience of youth with lived experience of being engaged as patients in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed to synthesize qualitative evidence on experiences of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) during the course of diagnosis and treatment. We addressed three main questions: (a) What were the experiences of patients with AF during the course of diagnosis and treatment? (b) How did they respond to and cope with the disease? (c) What were the requirements during disease management? Design: In this study, qualitative evidence synthesis was performed using the Thomas and Harden method. Data Sources: Electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the China Biomedical Database, the WanFang Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP, were searched. The databases were searched from inception to August 2021. Review Methods: Two researchers independently selected studies using qualitative assessment and review instruments for quality evaluation and thematic synthesis for the data analysis. Results: A total of 2627 studies were identified in the initial search and 15 studies were included. Five analytical themes were generated: 'Diagnosing AF'; 'The impact of AF on the patients'; 'Self‐reorientation in the therapeutic process'; 'Living with AF and QoL'; and 'External support to facilitate coping strategies.' Conclusions: Our findings point out unique experiences of patients across the trajectory of AF related to delayed diagnosis, feelings of nonsupport, disappointment of repeated treatment failure and multiple distress associated with unpredictable symptoms. Future research and clinical practice are expected to improve the quality of medical diagnosis and treatment, optimize administrative strategy and provide diverse health support for patients with AF. Impact: Understanding the experiences and needs of patients with AF in the entire disease process will inform future clinical practice in AF integrated management, which would be helpful in improving the professionalism and confidence of healthcare providers. In addition, our findings have implications for improving the effectiveness of AF diagnostic and treatment services. Patient or Public Contribution: This paper presents a review of previous studies and did not involve patients or the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic serious condition of uncertain course and outcome. There is relatively little literature on the experiences of people who live with a person with MS. They inhabit a locus of care that spans caring for (a relational act) and caring about (a moral stance, addressing fairness, compassion and justice) the person with MS. Methods: Using the theoretical lens of personhood, we undertook a scoping review and meta‐synthesis of the qualitative literature on the experiences of people who live with a person with MS, focusing on the nature of, and constraints upon, caring. Results: Of 330 articles, 49 were included in the review. We identified five themes. One of these—seeking information and support—reflects the political economy of care. Two are concerned with the moral domain of care: caring as labour and living with uncertainty. The final two themes—changing identities and adapting to life with a person with MS—point to the negotiation and reconstitution of personhood for both the person with MS and the people they live with. Conclusion: People with MS are embedded in relational social networks of partners, family and friends, which are fundamental in the support of their personhood; the people who live with them are 'co‐constituents of the patient's identity' assisting them to make sense of their world and self in times of disruption due to illness. Support services and health care professionals caring for people with MS are currently very much patient‐centred; young people in particular report that their roles are elided in the health system's interaction with a parent with MS. There is a need to look beyond the person with MS and recognize the relational network of people who surround them and broaden their focus to encompass this network. Patient and Public Involvement: Our research team includes four members with MS and two members with lived experience of living or working with people with MS. A third person (not a team member) who lives with a partner with MS provided feedback on the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective: Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria: We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis: Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results: A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions: Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]