Should Australia's hospitals be reviewing the use of research in patient care by nurses, managers and allied health professionals? - A systematic review of recent evidence

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedley Peach

Recently published studies were systematically reviewed to determine whether use of research in clinical practice bynurses, managers and allied health professionals in hospitals is currently sub-optimal, the factors influencing this andpossible remedial strategies. The better studies confirmed that use of appropriate research is currently sub-optimal. Thenature of the research and access to it is partly responsible for this. However, adoption of research findings is alsocurrently hindered by factors inherent in hospitals and by the skills and attitudes of potential users of the research.Numerous remedial strategies have been suggested and hospitals could take responsibility for implementing many ofthem. However, most have yet to be evaluated. Studies into the use of research findings by nurses, managers and alliedhealth professionals in Australian hospitals and trials of remedial strategies are recommended.

2017 ◽  
Vol 73 (8) ◽  
pp. 1825-1837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Pollock ◽  
Pauline Campbell ◽  
Ruth Deery ◽  
Mick Fleming ◽  
Jean Rankin ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacinta Sheehan ◽  
Kate Laver ◽  
Anoo Bhopti ◽  
Miia Rahja ◽  
Tim Usherwood ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is a compelling rationale that effective communication between hospital allied health professionals and primary care practitioners could improve quality and continuity of patient care. It is not known which methods of communication are used, nor how effectively they facilitate the transition of care when a patient is discharged home from hospital. Our systematic review aims to investigate the methods and effectiveness of communication between hospital allied health professionals and primary care practitioners. Method Systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with narrative synthesis. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Proquest Nursing and Allied Health Sources were searched from January 2003 until January 2020 for studies that examined hospital allied health professionals communicating with primary care practitioners. Risk of bias in the different study designs were appraised using recognised tools and a content analysis conducted of the methodologies used. Results From the located 12,281 papers (duplicates removed), 24 studies met the inclusion criteria with hospital allied health professionals communicating in some form with primary care practitioners. There was, however, limited literature investigating the methods and/or the effectiveness of communication between hospital allied health professionals and primary care practitioners.Conclusion There is currently no 'gold standard' method or measure of communication between hospital allied health professionals and primary care practitioners. There is an urgent need to develop and evaluate multidisciplinary communication with enhanced health information technologies to improve collaboration across healthcare settings and facilitate continuity of integrated people-centred care.Registration: www.crd.york.uk PROSPERO CRD42019120410


Author(s):  
Louis-Pierre Auger ◽  
Myrian Grondin ◽  
Mélanie Aubertin ◽  
Audrey Marois ◽  
Johanne Filiatrault ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. A80-A80
Author(s):  
J. F. L.

One of the most striking—and disturbing—changes under way in medicine is the rapid erosion of the physician's authority for managing the patient. More and more allied health professionals and organizations such as HMOs and PPOs clamor for the right to direct patient care. Yet when it comes to assuming some of the risk for malpractice suits, these groups want the burden to remain entirely on the doctor. Another claimant to knowing better than doctors what patients need: the utilization review firm. UR companies have made doctors' lives miserable by denying hospitalization, demanding earlier discharge, and generally questioning every aspect of patient management. When a malpractice suit arises, though, the UR firms all too often deny any responsibility. How? They say they're just interpreting the benefits a plan offers. This and other forms of legal hairsplitting leave the doctor holding the malpractice bag.


2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 240-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn McPherson ◽  
Paula Kersten ◽  
Steve George ◽  
Val Lattimer ◽  
Alice Breton ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document