Objective To provide a route map regarding systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture therapies that will meet two goals: (1) to identify areas in which more or better evidence is required and (2) to identify acupuncture applications that, although proven effective, remain underused in practice, and thus warrant more effective knowledge dissemination. Eligibility criteria We included SRs that conducted meta-analyses (MAs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for this overview. Information sources We searched for SRs without language restrictions from January 2015 to November 2020 in four Chinese electronic databases and Epistemonikos database. And we also searched for newly published RCTs that were eligible for selected best SRs in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and four Chinese electronic databases from its lasted search dates to November 2020. Synthesis of results We reanalysed the selected MAs if new primary studies were added. We used random-effect model to calculate the overall effect. Results Our search identified 120 SRs published in the last 5 years addressing acupuncture therapies across 12 therapeutic areas and 77 diseases and conditions. The SRs included 205 outcomes and involved 138 995 participants from 1402 RCTs. We constructed 77 evidence matrices, including 120 SRs and their included RCTs in the Epistemonikos database. Seventy-seven SRs represented the effect estimate of acupuncture therapies. Finally, we system summarised the areas of possible underutilisation of acupuncture therapies (high or moderate certainty evidence of large or moderate effects), and the areas of warranting additional investigation of acupuncture therapies (low or very low certainty evidence of moderate or large effects). Conclusion The evidence maps and overview of SRs on acupuncture therapies identified both therapies with substantial benefits that may require more assertive evidence dissemination and promising acupuncture therapies that require further investigation.

OBJECTIVES: The rapid influx of patients with COVID-19 to intensive care at a rate that exceeds pre-existing staff capacity has required the rapid development of innovative redeployment and training strategies, which considered patient care and infection control. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed understanding of redeployment and training during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic by capturing and considering the merit of the strategies enlisted and the experiences and needs of redeployed healthcare workers (HCWs). DESIGN: The review involved a systematic search of key terms related to intensive care AND training AND redeployment AND healthcare workers within nine databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, MedRxiv, Web of Science, The Health Management Consortium database, Social Science Research Network, OpenGrey and TRIP), which took place on 16 July 2021. Analysis consisted of a synthesis of quantitative study outputs and framework-based thematic analysis of qualitative study outputs and grey literature. These results were then combined applying an interpretative synthesis. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the review protocol was available online. RESULTS: Forty papers were analysed. These took place primarily in the UK (n=15, 37.5%) and USA (n=17, 42.5%). Themes presented in the results are redeployment: implementation strategies and learning; redeployed HCWs' experience and strategies to address their needs; redeployed HCWs' learning needs; training formats offered and training evaluations; and future redeployment and training delivery. Based on this, key principles for successful redeployment and training were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic presents unique challenges to develop flexible redeployment strategies and deliver training promptly while following infection control recommendations. This review synthesises original approaches to tackle these challenges, which are relevant to inform the development of targeted and adaptative training and redeployment plans considering the needs of HCWs.

OBJECTIVES: The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act created incentives for adopting electronic health records (EHRs) for some healthcare organisations, but long-term care (LTC) facilities are excluded from those incentives. There are realisable benefits of EHR adoption in LTC facilities; however, there is limited research about this topic. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to identify EHR adoption factors for LTC facilities that are ineligible for the HITECH Act incentives. SETTING: We conducted systematic searches of Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Complete via Ebson B. Stephens Company (EBSCO Host), Google Scholar and the university library search engine to collect data about EHR adoption factors in LTC facilities since 2009. PARTICIPANTS: Search results were filtered by date range, full text, English language and academic journals (n=22). INTERVENTIONS: Multiple members of the research team read each article to confirm applicability and study conclusions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Researchers identified common themes across the literature: specifically facilitators and barriers to adoption of the EHR in LTC. RESULTS: Results identify facilitators and barriers associated with EHR adoption in LTC facilities. The most common facilitators include access to information and error reduction. The most prevalent barriers include initial costs, user perceptions and implementation problems. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities span the system selection phases and implementation process; of those, cost was the most common mentioned. These commonalities should help leaders in LTC facilities align strategic decisions to EHR adoption. This review may be useful for decision-makers attempting successful EHR adoption, policymakers trying to increase adoption rates without expanding incentives and vendors that produce EHRs

Objectives This study aimed to analyse the cost-utility and budget impact of adding tocilizumab to the standard treatment for patients with refractory systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA) in Thailand. Design Economic evaluation using a decision-analytical model. Setting Thailand. Participants Patients with refractory sJIA who were >= 2 years old. Methods The use of tocilizumab as an add-on therapy to standard treatment was compared with standard treatment alone. A simulated health state transition model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and health outcomes from a societal perspective. Direct medical costs were collected from tertiary hospital databases while direct non-medical costs were derived from interviews. Health-related quality of life (QoL) was measured using the proxy version of three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Future costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. The base case population was patients aged 9.41 years old at refractory disease onset. The results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) in US dollar (USD). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to investigate parameter uncertainty. The 5-year budget impact was estimated from a governmental perspective. Results The ICER of standard treatment plus tocilizumab was US$35 799 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with standard treatment alone, which was not cost-effective at the threshold of US$5128 per QALY gained. The estimated 5 years budget impact was approximately US$4.8 million. Conclusions The use of standard treatment plus tocilizumab was not cost-effective in the Thai context, which has limited data. However, there is currently no second-line treatment for refractory sJIA in the Thai National List of Essential Medicines; thus, patients must receive higher doses of standard treatment which can cause many side effects. In contrast, tocilizumab showed obvious efficacy in clinical trials in improving treatment response and QoL. Therefore, the price of tocilizumab should be negotiated to reduce the financial impact on the healthcare system.

Background: Implementing research findings into practice is a complex process that is not well understood. Facilitation has been described as a key component of getting research findings into practice. The literature on facilitation as a practice innovation is growing. This review aimed to identify facilitator roles and to describe characteristics of facilitation that may be associated with successful research use by healthcare professionals. Methods: We searched 10 electronic databases up to December 2016 and used predefined criteria to select articles. We included conceptual papers and empirical studies that described facilitator roles, facilitation processes or interventions, and that focused on healthcare professionals and research use. We used content and thematic analysis to summarise data. Rogers' five main attributes of an innovation guided our synthesis of facilitation characteristics. Results: Of the 38 488 articles identified from our online and manual search, we included 195 predominantly research studies. We identified nine facilitator roles: opinion leaders, coaches, champions, research facilitators, clinical/practice facilitators, outreach facilitators, linking agents, knowledge brokers and external-internal facilitators. Fifteen facilitation characteristics were associated with research use, which we grouped into five categories using Rogers' innovation attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Conclusions: We found a diverse and broad literature on the concept of facilitation that can expand our current thinking about facilitation as an innovation and its potential to support an integrated, collaborative approach to improving healthcare delivery.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the key issues, problems, barriers and challenges particularly in relation to the quality of care in university hospitals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and to provide recommendations for improvement. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out using five electronic databases, for articles published between January 2004 and January 2015. We included studies conducted in university hospitals in KSA that focused on the quality of healthcare. Three independent reviewers verified that the studies met the inclusion criteria, assessed the quality of the studies and extracted their relevant characteristics. All studies were assessed using the Institute of Medicine indicators of quality of care. RESULTS: Of the 1430 references identified in the initial search, eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The included studies clearly highlight a need to improve the quality of healthcare delivery, specifically in areas of patient safety, clinical effectiveness and patient-centredness, at university hospitals in KSA. Problems with quality of care could be due to failures of leadership, a requirement for better management and a need to establish a culture of safety alongside leadership reform in university hospitals. Lack of instructions given to patients and language communication were key factors impeding optimum delivery of patient-centred care. Decision-makers in KSA university hospitals should consider programmes and assessment tools to reveal problems and issues related to language as a barrier to quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: This review exemplifies the need for further improvement in the quality of healthcare in university hospitals in KSA. Many of the problems identified in this review could be addressed by establishing an independent body in KSA, which could monitor healthcare services and push for improvements in efficiency and quality of care.

Objectives Relevant guidelines and consensuses for COVID-19 contain recommendations aimed at optimising the management in paediatric wards. The goal of this study was to determine the quality of those recommendations and provide suggestions to hospital managers for the adjustment of existing hospital prevention and control strategies, and also to offer recommendations for further research. Design A rapid review of the guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards facing COVID-19. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, UpToDate, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang database and relevant websites such as medlive.cn, dxy.cn, the National Health and Health Commission and the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention were systematically searched through late May 2020. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool was then used to assess the quality of the selected articles and summarise the relevant evidence concerning management in paediatric wards. Results A total of 35 articles were included, composed of 3 consensus guidelines, 25 expert consensuses and 7 expert opinions. Of the 35 papers, 24 were from China, 2 from the USA, 1 from Spain, 1 from Brazil, 1 from Saudi Arabia and 6 from multinational cooperative studies. Scores for the six domains of the AGREE II tool (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence) were 98.57%, 53.57%, 17.92%, 69.62%, 26.96% and 50.35%, respectively. Recommendations for nosocomial infection and control, human resource management as well as management of paediatric patients and their families were summarised. Conclusions Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the quality of rapid guidelines and consensuses for the management in paediatric wards affected by COVID-19 is unsatisfactory. In the future, it will be necessary to develop more high-quality guidelines or consensuses for the management in paediatric wards to deal with nosocomial outbreaks in order to fully prepare for emergency medical and health problems.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate service use, clinical outcomes and user experience related to telephone-based digital triage in urgent care. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for literature published between 1 March 2000 and 1 April 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies of any design investigating patterns of triage advice, wider service use, clinical outcomes and user experience relating to telephone based digital triage in urgent care. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted data and conducted quality assessments using the mixed methods appraisal tool. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse findings. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included, with the majority being UK based; most investigated nurse-led digital triage (n=26). Eight evaluated the impact on wider healthcare service use following digital triage implementation, typically reporting reduction or no change in service use. Six investigated patient level service use, showing mixed findings relating to patients' adherence with triage advice. Evaluation of clinical outcomes was limited. Four studies reported on hospitalisation rates of digitally triaged patients and highlighted potential triage errors where patients appeared to have not been given sufficiently high urgency advice. Overall, service users reported high levels of satisfaction, in studies of both clinician and non-clinician led digital triage, but with some dissatisfaction over the relevance and number of triage questions. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed into patient level service use, including patients' adherence with triage advice and how this influences subsequent use of services. Further evaluation of clinical outcomes using larger datasets and comparison of different digital triage systems is needed to explore consistency and safety. The safety and effectiveness of non-clinician led digital triage also needs evaluation. Such evidence should contribute to improvement of digital triage tools and service delivery.