Hospital-based patient navigation programs for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: This review's objective is to map the literature on the characteristics, impact, barriers and facilitators of hospital-based patient navigation programmes that support patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers. Patients who experience injury-related trauma frequently require support from multiple care teams and face many challenges to care, both in hospital and when transitioning across settings and services. Patient navigation can improve their care. DESIGN: This review is conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The initial database search took place on 6 June 2021 and the grey literature search took place between September and October 2021. The results are presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Scoping Reviews flow diagram. SETTING: This review considered materials where the patient navigation programmes were delivered in hospital settings. There was no geographical limit to this study. PARTICIPANTS: This review focused on hospital-based patient navigation programmes for patients who experience injury-related trauma and/or their caregivers. RESULTS: This review captured 11 records that describe 10 programmes. All programmes were based in the USA. Most programmes provided education, care coordination, discharge planning, and referrals to resources, services, and programmes to assist patients and/or their families in the hospital or the community. Half the programmes were based in level 1 trauma centres. Common impacts included decreases in readmission rates and increases in satisfaction rates. Barriers included difficulty recruiting or enrolling patients with short hospital stays and hospital administrators' and healthcare providers' lack of understanding of the navigator role. Navigator background, either professional or experiential, was identified as a facilitator, as was flexibility in programme delivery and communication methods. CONCLUSIONS: Eleven records show a small but distinct sample. Reported characteristics, impact, barriers and facilitators were consistent with findings from other patient navigation studies. The results can inform the development and implementation of similar programmes in trauma centres and support changes in policy to improve the delivery of care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».