Hospital-based patient navigation programs for patients who experience injury-related trauma and their caregivers: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".