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 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

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.