BACKGROUND: Clinical errors in intensive care units (ICUs) are consistently attributed to communication errors. Despite its importance for patient safety and quality in critical care settings, few studies consider interprofessional communication as more than the basic exchange of information. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of interprofessional communication in ICUs to (1) characterize how communication is defined and measured and (2) identify contributions the field of health communication can make to team communication in ICUs. Through a series of queries in PubMed and Communication and Mass Media Complete databases, we identified and compared persistent gaps in how communication is framed and theorized in 28 publications from health services and 6 from social science outlets. We identified research priorities and suggested strategies for discussing communication more holistically in future health services research. RESULTS: 34 articles published from 1999 to 2021 were included. Six explicitly defined communication. Six were published in social science journals, but none were authored by a communication studies scholar. Half of the articles addressed communication as a transaction focused on information transfer, and the other half addressed communication as a process. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological implications are identified with the intent to encourage future interdisciplinary collaboration for studying communication in ICUs. We discuss the importance of (1) using language to describe communication that facilitates interdisciplinary engagement, (2) prioritizing communication as a process and using qualitative methods to provide insight, and (3) engaging health communication theories and experts to assist in developing more fruitful research questions and designs.

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. Results: We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28). Conclusion: Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted

Intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is the preferred treatment option for managing severe iron deficiency (ID) and ID anemia (IDA). Three of the available IV iron preparations are ferric derisomaltose (FDI), ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), and iron sucrose (IS). The objective of the present work was to review the published literature about the efficacy, safety, quality of life (QoL), and economic outcomes of using FDI, FCM, and IS for the treatment of ID. A systematic literature search was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using appropriate tools, and data were extracted and analyzed for key outcomes. The evidence synthesis was based on published systematic literature reviews (SLRs), meta-analyses (MAs), indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), and health technology assessments (HTAs); we also included economic evaluations performed from a Chinese perspective. Out of 337 initial hits, the review included 12 studies. The findings indicated that FDI, FCM, and IS had comparable efficacy in terms of hemoglobin (Hb) improvement. FDI showed a better safety profile with a lower risk of hypophosphatemia, hypersensitivity reactions, and cardiovascular adverse events (AEs) compared to IS and FCM. FDI also demonstrated better cost-effectiveness compared to IS, with potential cost savings attributed to fewer infusions and improved compliance. None of the included studies evaluated QoL after IV iron administration for ID. FDI offers a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective treatment option for ID. It exhibits comparable efficacy to FCM and IS but presents a better safety profile and economic advantage. FDI fulfills the criteria of efficacy, safety, economy, innovation, suitability, and accessibility, making it a promising choice for ID management in China.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: The current systematic review will identify enablers of psychological safety within the literature in order to produce a comprehensive list of factors that enable psychological safety specific to healthcare teams. DATA SOURCES: A keyword search strategy was developed and used to search the following electronic databases PsycINFO, ABI/INFORM, Academic search complete and PubMed and grey literature databases OpenGrey, OCLC WorldCAT and Espace. STUDY SELECTION: Peer-reviewed studies relevant to enablers of psychological safety in healthcare setting that were published between 1999 and 2019 were eligible for inclusion. Covidence, an online specialized systematic review website, was used to screen records. Data extraction, quality appraisal and narrative synthesis were conducted on identified papers. DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-six relevant studies were identified for full review and data extraction. A data extraction template was developed and included sections for the study methodology and the specific enablers identified within each study. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Identified studies were reviewed using a narrative synthesis. Within the 36 articles reviewed, 13 enablers from across organizational, team and individual levels were identified. These enablers were grouped according to five broader themes: priority for patient safety, improvement or learning orientation, support, familiarity with colleagues, status, hierarchy and inclusiveness and individual differences. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of psychological safety literature identifies a list of enablers of psychological safety within healthcare teams. This list can be used as a first step in developing observational measures and interventions to improve psychological safety in healthcare teams.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, the burden of allergies-in particular, drug allergies-is growing. In the process of prescribing, dispensing, or administering a drug, a medication error may occur and can have adverse consequences; for example, a drug may be given to a patient with a documented allergy to that particular drug. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems with built-in clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to prevent such medication errors and adverse events. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview regarding all aspects of CDSS for drug allergy, including documenting, coding, rule bases, alerts and alert fatigue, and outcome evaluation. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed as much as possible and searches were conducted in 5 databases using CPOE, CDSS, alerts, and allergic or allergy as keywords. Bias could not be evaluated according to PRISMA guidelines due to the heterogeneity of study types included in the review. RESULTS: Of the 3160 articles considered, 60 met the inclusion criteria. A further 9 articles were added based on expert opinion, resulting in a total of 69 articles. An interrater agreement of 90.9% with a reliability Kappa=.787 (95% CI 0.686-0.888) was reached. Large heterogeneity across study objectives, study designs, study populations, and reported results was found. Several key findings were identified. Evidence of the usefulness of clinical decision support for drug allergies has been documented. Nevertheless, there are some important problems associated with their use. Accurate and structured documenting of information on drug allergies in electronic health records (EHRs) is difficult, as it is often not clear to healthcare providers how and where to document drug allergies. Besides the underreporting of drug allergies, outdated or inaccurate drug allergy information in EHRs poses an important problem. Research on the use of coding terminologies for documenting drug allergies is sparse. There is no generally accepted standard terminology for structured documentation of allergy information. The final key finding is the consistently reported low specificity of drug allergy alerts. Current systems have high alert override rates of up to 90%, leading to alert fatigue. Important challenges remain for increasing the specificity of drug allergy alerts. We found only one study specifically reporting outcomes related to CDSS for drug allergies. It showed that adverse drug events resulting from overridden drug allergy alerts do not occur frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and comprehensive recording of drug allergies is required for good use of CDSS for drug allergy screening. We found considerable variation in the way drug allergy are recorded in EHRs. It remains difficult to reduce drug allergy alert overload while maintaining patient safety as the highest priority. Future research should focus on improving alert specificity, thereby reducing override rates and alert fatigue. Also, the effect on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness should be evaluated.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation has been identified as an important intervention to minimize the incidence of unintentional medication discrepancies at transitions in care. However, there is a lack of evidence for the impact of information technology on the rate and incidence of medication discrepancies identified during care transitions. This systematic review was thus, aimed to evaluate the impact of electronic medication reconciliation interventions on the occurrence of medication discrepancies at hospital transitions. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, CINHAL, and EMBASE from inception to November, 2015. We included published studies in English that evaluated the effect of information technology on the incidence and rate of medication discrepancies compared with usual care. Cochrane's tools were used for assessment of the quality of included studies. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models. RESULTS: Ten studies met our inclusion criteria; of which only one was a randomized controlled trial. Interventions were carried out at various hospital transitions (admission, 5; discharge, 2 and multiple transitions, 3 studies). Meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of 45 % in the proportion of medications with unintentional discrepancies after the use of electronic medication reconciliation (RR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.51 to 0.58). However, there was no significant reduction in either the proportion of patients with medication discrepancies or the mean number of discrepancies per patient. Drug omissions were the most common types of unintended discrepancies, and with an electronic tool a significant but heterogeneously distributed reduction of omission errors over the total number of medications reconciled have been observed (RR 0.20; 95 % CI 0.06 to 0.66). The clinical impact of unintended discrepancies was evaluated in five studies, and there was no potentially fatal error identified and most errors were minor in severity. CONCLUSION: Medication reconciliation supported by an electronic tool was able to minimize the incidence of medications with unintended discrepancy, mainly drug omissions. But, this did not consistently reduce other process outcomes, although there was a lack of rigorous design to conform these results.

BACKGROUND: Measuring nursing care quality is essential for nursing practice. However, because of its complexity, such a quality is difficult to define and measure appropriately and a review of available instruments to measure this is important. AIM: This systematic review reports on contemporary quantitative instruments for evaluating nursing care quality and suggests some directions for further study. METHOD: A comprehensive search was conducted in 2015 to review five databases CINAHL, HINARI, ScienceDirect, Google and PubMed, and 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. The search covered the earliest literature found up until November 2015. RESULT: We found that instruments could be categorized from three different measuring perspectives (1) nurses, (2) patients and (3) both nurses and patients. LIMITATION: First, only English language literature was sought and only five databases were reviewed. Second, the instruments reviewed are of varying dimensions. Finally, some authors did not provide the psychometric properties of the instruments studied. CONCLUSION: Many reviews published in peer-reviewed journals have serious methodological flaws that focus on different perspectives in relation to instruments to measure nursing care quality. As the result of this systematic review instruments are focused on different perspectives of nursing care quality for nurse managers. In addition, the findings of this systematic review enhance better understanding of the perspectives in regard to both nurses and patients in the health-care facilities. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY: The results of this systematic review contribute to the ability of nurse managers to improve and consider the measurement of nursing care quality in clinical practice. The first suggests the need to understand the different perceptions of both nurses and patients' instruments regarding NCQ. Also, a health-care quality-related policy should also be formulated to reduce adverse events. The recording system policy must be designed appropriately in order to monitor patient outcomes every year