Search

BACKGROUND:Rural areas have historically struggled with shortages of healthcare providers; however, advanced communication technologies have transformed rural healthcare, and practice in underserved areas has been recognized as a policy priority. This systematic review aims to assess reasons for current providers' geographic choices and the success of training programs aimed at increasing rural provider recruitment. METHODS:This systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015025403) searched seven databases for published and gray literature on the current cohort of US rural healthcare practitioners (2005 to March 2017). Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion; one reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias, with a senior systematic reviewer checking the data; quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS:Of 7276 screened citations, we identified 31 studies exploring reasons for geographic choices and 24 studies documenting the impact of training programs. Growing up in a rural community is a key determinant and is consistently associated with choosing rural practice. Most existing studies assess physicians, and only a few are based on multivariate analyses that take competing and potentially correlated predictors into account. The success rate of placing providers-in-training in rural practice after graduation, on average, is 44% (range 20-84%; N = 31 programs). We did not identify program characteristics that are consistently associated with program success. Data are primarily based on rural tracks for medical residents. DISCUSSION:The review provides insight into the relative importance of demographic characteristics and motivational factors in determining which providers should be targeted to maximize return on recruitment efforts. Existing programs exposing students to rural practice during their training are promising but require further refining. Public policy must include a specific focus on the trajectory of t

BACKGROUND:The correct perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) is often debated by clinicians. American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend postponing elective NCS at least 3 months after stent implantation. Regardless of the timing of surgery, ACC/AHA guidelines recommend continuing at least ASA throughout the perioperative period and ideally continuing dual APT (DAPT) therapy "unless surgery demands discontinuation." The objective of this review was to ascertain the risks and benefits of APT in the perioperative period, to assess how these risks and benefits vary by APT management, and the significance of length of time since stent implantation before operative intervention. METHODS:PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through October 2017. Articles were included if patients were post PCI with stent placement (bare metal [BMS] or drug eluting [DES]), underwent elective NCS, and had rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or bleeding events associated with pre and perioperative APT therapy. RESULTS:Of 4882 screened articles, we included 16 studies in the review (1 randomized controlled trial and 15 observational studies). Studies were small (< 50: n = 5, 51-150: n = 5, >150: n = 6). All studies included DES with 7 of 16 also including BMS. Average time from stent to NCS was variable (< 6 months: n = 3, 6-12 months: n = 1, > 12 months: n = 6). At least six different APT strategies were described. Six studies further utilized bridging protocols using three different pharmacologic agents. Studies typically included multiple surgical fields with varying degrees of invasiveness. Across all APT strategies, rates of MACE/bleeding ranged from 0 to 21% and 0 to 22%. There was no visible trend in MACE/bleeding rates within a given APT strategy. Stratifying the articles by type of surgery, timing

BackgroundSystematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are useful only if up-to-date. Methods for detecting signals of when a systematic review needs updating have face validity, but no proposed method has had an assessment of predictive validity performed.MethodsThe AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review program had produced 13 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), a subcategory of systematic reviews, by 2009, 11 of which were assessed in 2009 using a surveillance system to determine the degree to which individual conclusions were out of date and to assign a priority for updating each report. Four CERs were judged to be a high priority for updating, four CERs were judged to be medium priority for updating, and three CERs were judged to be low priority for updating. AHRQ then commissioned full update reviews for 9 of these 11 CERs. Where possible, we matched the original conclusions with their corresponding conclusions in the update reports, and compared the congruence between these pairs with our original predictions about which conclusions in each CER remained valid. We then classified the concordance of each pair as good, fair, or poor. We also made a summary determination of the priority for updating each CER based on the actual changes in conclusions in the updated report, and compared these determinations with the earlier assessments of priority.ResultsThe 9 CERs included 149 individual conclusions, 84% with matches in the update reports. Across reports, 83% of matched conclusions had good concordance, and 99% had good or fair concordance. The one instance of poor concordance was partially attributable to the publication of new evidence after the surveillance signal searches had been done. Both CERs originally judged as being low priority for updating had no substantive changes to their conclusions in the actual updated report. The agreement on overall priority for updating between prediction and actual changes to conclusions was Kapp

IMPORTANCE Quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce hospital readmission, but little is known about their economic value. OBJECTIVE To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to reduce readmissions. DATA SOURCES Databases searched included PubMed, Econlit, the Centre for Reviews & Dissemination Economic Evaluations, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, andWorldcat (January 2004 to July 2016). STUDY SELECTION Dual reviewers selected English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational or structural changes to reduce hospital readmission, and that reported program and readmission-related costs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Dual reviewers extracted intervention characteristics, study design, clinical effectiveness, study quality, economic perspective, and costs.We calculated the risk difference and net costs to the health system in 2015 US dollars.Weighted least-squares regression analyses tested predictors of the risk difference and net costs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Main outcomes measures included the risk difference in readmission rates and incremental net cost. This systematic review and data analysis is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS Of 5205 articles, 50 unique studies were eligible, including 25 studies in populations limited to heart failure (HF) that included 5768 patients, 21 in general populations that included 10 445 patients, and 4 in unique populations. Fifteen studies lasted up to 30 days while most others lasted 6 to 24 months. Based on regression analyses, readmissions declined by an average of 12.1% among patients with HF (95%CI, 8.3%-15.9%; P < .001; based on 22 studies with complete data) and by 6.3%among general populations (95%CI, 4.0%-8.7%; P < .001; 18 studies). The mean net savings to the health system per patient was $972 among patients with HF (95%CI, −$642 to $