MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410348049 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006632.pub3

Clinical pathways for secondary care and the effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs

2025· review· en· W4410348049 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Thomas Rotter, Leigh Kinsman, Agnès Alsius, Shannon D. Scott, Adegboyega Lawal, Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, Christopher Plishka, Gary Groot, Phil Woods, Chloe Coulson, Leigh Anne Bakel, Kim Sears, Amanda Ross‐White, Andreas Machotta, Tim Schultz

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClinical practice guidelines implementation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
Mots-clésPatient careMedicineNursingFamily medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical pathways (CPWs) are structured multidisciplinary care plans. They aim to translate evidence into practice and optimize clinical outcomes. This is the first update of the previous systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of CPWs on patient outcomes, length of stay, costs and charges, adherence to recommended practice, and to measure the impact of different approaches to implementation of CPWs. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched on 25 July 2024. Two trial registries were searched on 26 July 2024, along with reference checking, citation searching and contacting authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered two groups of participants: health professionals involved in CPW utilization, including (but not limited to) physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacists, occupational therapists and social workers; and patients managed using a CPW. We included randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies comparing (1) stand-alone clinical pathways with usual care, and (2) clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened all titles, abstracts and full-text manuscripts to assess eligibility and the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care 'Risk of Bias' tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed by two authors independently. Interventions were scored as 'high', 'moderate' or 'low' for the evidence-based implementation process. MAIN RESULTS: The update provided 31 additional studies for a total of 58 included studies (24,841 patients and 2027 healthcare professionals). Forty-one (71%) were randomized trials, four (7%) non-randomized trials, four (7%) CBA studies and nine (16%) ITS studies. Forty-nine studies compared stand-alone CPWs to usual care and nine compared multifaceted interventions including a CPW to usual care. Collectively, the risk of bias was high due to potential contamination by healthcare professionals, lack of blinding of patients and personnel, lack of allocation concealment and selective reporting in ITS studies. Stand-alone clinical pathway interventions It is uncertain whether stand-alone CPWs reduce inhospital mortality (13% v 16%: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.20; P = 0.27; I² = 65%; 7 randomized trials; n = 4603; low-certainty evidence due to serious imprecision and inconsistency) or mortality (up to 6 months) (4% v 3%: OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.60; P = 0.34; I² = 20%; 3 randomized trials, n = 805; low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and imprecision). Stand-alone CPWs likely reduce inhospital complications (10% v 17%: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.80; P = 0.001; I² = 52%; 11 randomized trials, n = 3668; moderate-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias). It is very uncertain whether stand-alone CPWs reduce hospital readmissions (up to 6 months) (9% v 13%: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.03; P = 0.07; I² = 11%; 9 randomized trials, n = 1578; very low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). Stand-alone CPWs likely reduce the length of hospital stay compared to usual care (MD -1.12 days, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.65; P < 0.00001; I² = 64%; 21 studies; n = 5201; moderate-certainty evidence due to serious inconsistency). Costs and charges were generally lower in CPWs as indicated by negative MDs in nine studies (10 studies, n = 2113, data not pooled; very low-certainty evidence due to serious indirectness and very serious inconsistency). Stand-alone CPWs may slightly increase adherence to recommended practice compared with usual care (3 randomized studies, n = 573; data not pooled; low-certainty evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious inconsistency). Multifaceted clinical pathway interventions It is uncertain whether multifaceted CPWs reduce inhospital mortality (2 randomized studies, n = 6304, data not pooled; low-certainty evidence due to very serious inconsistency). Multifaceted CPWs may make little or no difference to mortality (up to 6 months) (9% v 8%: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; P = 0.61; I² = 0%; 3 randomized studies; n = 6531; low-certainty evidence due to serious imprecision and serious risk of bias). It is uncertain whether multifaceted CPWs reduce inhospital complications (9% v 23%: OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.87; 1 study, n = 140; low-certainty evidence due to very serious imprecision). It is uncertain whether multifaceted CPWs reduce hospital readmission (up to 6 months) (2 randomized studies, n =1569, data not pooled; low-certainty evidence due to very serious inconsistency), or length of stay (4 randomized studies, n = 1936, data not pooled; low-certainty evidence due to very serious inconsistency), or hospital costs and charges (4 randomized studies, n = 2015, data not pooled; very low-certainty evidence due to very serious imprecision and serious indirectness in outcome measures). It is uncertain whether multifaceted CPWs increase adherence to recommended practice (2 randomized studies, n = 6304, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence due to very serious inconsistency). Key study characteristics The highest proportion of included studies were from the USA (36%), followed by Australia (10%), China (10%), Japan (5%), the UK (5%), Canada (5%), Italy (5%), and Germany (5%). More than half of the included studies tested CPW in general acute wards (53%), followed by emergency departments (17%), intensive care (14%), and extended-stay facilities (10%). The most common clinical conditions were asthma (16%), stroke (10%), mechanical ventilation (9%) and myocardial infarction (7%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Stand-alone CPWs are likely to reduce inhospital complications and length of hospital stay and may slightly increase adherence to recommended practice. There was little conclusive evidence for multifaceted CPWs due to mixed results from a limited number of included studies. It is uncertain whether stand-alone CPWs or CPWs, as part of a multifaceted approach, reduce inhospital mortality, mortality (up to 6 months), hospital readmission (up to 6 months) or costs and charges.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,195
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,393
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,195
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0090,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,164
Tête enseignante GPT0,521
Écart entre enseignants0,357 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetClinical practice guidelines implementationTravaux en français237 207