scholarly journals Interventions to Reduce Patient Identification Errors in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-121
Author(s):  
Helena De Rezende ◽  
Marta M. Melleiro ◽  
Paulo A. O. Marques ◽  
Timothy H. Barker

Background: Patient identification is considered as a fundamental part of the care process and a relevant resource for safety practices in hospital settings. Objective: We aimed to review the literature on interventions to reduce patient identification errors in hospital settings. Methods: A systematic review of effectiveness using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology was conducted. A three-step search strategy was utilised to explore primary research published up to March 2020 in English, Spanish, and Portuguese across eight databases. Grey literature was also assessed. The titles and abstracts of the studies were screened for assessment of the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently appraised the full text of the selected studies and extracted data using standardised tools from JBI. Due to the heterogeneity of studies and insufficient data for statistical pooling, meta-analysis was not feasible. Therefore, the results were synthesised narratively. Results: Twelve studies met the review criteria; all were rated at a moderate risk of bias and four different groups of interventions were identified: educational staff interventions alone and those combined with a partnership with families and patients through education; and information technology interventions alone, and combined with an educational staff strategy. Although most studies showed a statistically significant reduction in patient identification errors, the overall quality of the evidence was considered very low. Conclusion: High-quality research is needed to understand the real impact of interventions to reduce patient identification errors. Nurses should recognise the importance of patient identification practices as a part of their overall commitment to improving patient safety. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018085236

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Reinold ◽  
Wiebke Schäfer ◽  
Lara Christianson ◽  
Francesco Barone-Adesi ◽  
Oliver Riedel ◽  
...  

IntroductionMedications with anticholinergic activity are used in the treatment of many diseases common in old age, including depression, psychosis, Parkinson’s disease, allergies, pain and urinary incontinence. A high anticholinergic burden (ACB) is considered a major risk factor for fractures in older adults but recent studies reported inconsistent results. These inconsistencies may partly be due to differences in methodological aspects. However, no systematic review so far has addressed this association and considered study methods. Thus, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies addressing the association of ACB with fractures and to provide a methodological appraisal of the included studies.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, CENTRAL and grey literature using a strategy that combines the terms anticholinergic and fractures. We will hand search reference lists of articles. Two reviewers will independently screen all identified abstracts for eligibility and evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and RTI item bank. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or consultation with a third researcher. We will conduct a meta-analysis, either for the overall population or for specific and more homogeneous subgroups, if the number of studies retrieved and their heterogeneity allows it.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval will be sought, as no original data will be collected for this review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018116737.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035360
Author(s):  
Britzer Paul Vincent ◽  
Gurch Randhawa ◽  
Erica Cook

IntroductionThe need for organs is comparatively higher among people of Indian origin due to the higher prevalence of end-stage organ failure. In spite of the higher need, they have a lower number of organ donors. Studies have been carried out among people of Indian origin living globally to understand the reasons for the low donation rate, but there has been no systematic review that has integrated all of these studies to synthesise the current literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among Indians living globally.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted using the following relevant databases namely CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Global Health and Grey literature. Studies from 1994 that satisfy our inclusion criteria will be included. Two reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies; in event of any disagreement between the two reviewers at any stage, the third reviewer will reconcile any disagreements and consensus will be made.Ethics and disseminationAs this study includes only secondary data, ethical approval for secondary data usage has been sought. This study will use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to report and the study outcomes will be disseminated through a relevant peer-review publication, related conferences and also to various non-governmental organisations globally which are working with this particular community; following which further research can be developed based on this evidence and also helps in building a culturally competent strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155274.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Natalia Carvajal-Juliá ◽  
Nicolás Meza ◽  
Eva Madrid ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sources We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of macrolides — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020181032


F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1228
Author(s):  
Adeel Khoja ◽  
Prabha H. Andraweera ◽  
Zohra S. Lassi ◽  
Mingyue Zheng ◽  
Maleesa M. Pathirana ◽  
...  

PCAD possesses a public health challenge resulting in years of productive life lost and an escalating burden on health systems. Objective of this review is to compare modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for PCAD compared to those without PCAD. This review will include all comparative observational studies conducted in adults aged >18 years with confirmed diagnosis of PCAD (on angiography) compared to those without PCAD. Databases to be searched include; PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and grey literature (Google Scholar). All identified studies will be screened for title and abstract and full-text against the inclusion criteria on Covidence software. Data relevant to exposures and outcomes will be extracted from all included studies. All studies selected for data extraction will be critically appraised for methodological quality. Meta-analysis using random-effects model will be performed using Review Manager 5.3. Effect sizes for categorical risk factors will be expressed as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For risk factors measured in continuous form, mean difference (if units are consistent) otherwise standardized mean difference (if units are different across studies) will be reported. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed using I2 test statistics. GRADE will be used to assess the certainty of the findings. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO Registration # CRD42020173216


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alemu Degu Ayele ◽  
Habtamu Gebrehana Belay ◽  
Bekalu Getnet Kassa ◽  
Mulugeta Dile Worke

Abstract Background Preconception care is the provision of biomedical, behavioural, and social health interventions provided to women and couples before conception. However, in Ethiopia, little is known and practised to support preconception care. Therefore, this study aimed to assess women’s knowledge and utilisation of preconception care and its associated factors in Ethiopia using systematic review and meta-analysis. Method In the current meta-analysis, variables were searched from different electronic database systems, which included PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, HINAR, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Grey literature. Data were extracted using a standardised data collection measurement tool. The data were analysed by using STATA 14 statistical software. I2 tests assessed heterogeneity between the studies. A random-effect model was used to forecast the pooled knowledge and utilisation of preconception care. Results Thirteen full-text studies were included. The pooled prevalence of knowledge and utilisation of preconception care among women in Ethiopia was 30.95% and 16.27% respectivelly. Secondary education (OR = 2.78, 95% CI,2.01–3.85), college and above (OR = 5.05, 95% CI,2.70–9.44), and antenatal care (OR = 3.89, 95% CI, 1.69–8.98) were significantly associated with knowledge level whereas; age (OR = 2.43, 95% CI, 1.30–4.53) and knowledge on preconception care (OR = 3.95, 95% CI,2.35–6.62) were positively associated with utilisation of preconception. Conclusions Women’s level of knowledge and utilisation of preconception care was significantly low. Educational status and antenatal care follow-up were factors shown to affect knowledge of preconception care. Age and having a sound knowledge of preconception care indicated a significant association towards utilisation of preconception care. Thus, integrating preconception care strategies and policies that can address all the components of preconception care services with other maternal and child health services will be essential when designing effective implementation strategies to improve preconception care uptake. Besides this, advocating for better education for women, awareness creation, and increasing antenatal care services are essential. Prospero registration: CRD42020218062


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001132
Author(s):  
Pousali Ghosh ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Avilasha Manandhar ◽  
Thomas Calma ◽  
Mary Bushell ◽  
...  

IntroductionScabies is recognised as a neglected tropical disease, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable populations around the world. Impetigo often occurs secondarily to scabies. Several studies have explored mass drug administration (MDA) programmes, with some showing positive outcomes—but a systematic evaluation of such studies is yet to be reported. The main aim of this systematic review is to generate comprehensive evidence on the effect and feasibility of MDA programmes in reducing the burden of scabies and impetigo.Methods and analysisA systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. Electronic databases to be searched will include CINAHL EBSCOhost, Medline Ovid, ProQuest, Science Direct, PubMed and SCOPUS. In addition, grey literature will be explored via the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, Informit, OaIster database and WHO. No language restrictions will be applied. All treatment studies following an MDA protocol, including randomised/quasi-controlled trials, and prospective before–after interventional studies, will be considered. The main outcome is the change in prevalence of scabies and impetigo The Cochrane collaboration risk of bias assessment tool will be used for assessing the methodological quality of studies. A random-effect restricted maximum likelihood meta-analysis will be performed to generate pooled effect (OR) using STATA V.16. Appropriate statistical tests will be carried out to quantify heterogeneity between studies and publication bias.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since data will be extracted from published works. The findings will be communicated to the scientific community through a peer-reviewed journal publication. This systematic review will present an evidence on the effect of MDA interventions on scabies and impetigo, which is instrumental to obtain a clear understanding of the treatments widely used in these programmes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020169544,


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043026
Author(s):  
Erin M Macri ◽  
Michael Callaghan ◽  
Marienke van Middelkoop ◽  
Miriam Hattle ◽  
Sita M A Bierma-Zeinstra

IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and disabling musculoskeletal condition. Biomechanical factors may play a key role in the aetiology of knee OA, therefore, a broad class of interventions involves the application or wear of devices designed to mechanically support knees with OA. These include gait aids, bracing, taping, orthotics and footwear. The literature regarding efficacy of mechanical interventions has been conflicting or inconclusive, and this may be because certain subgroups with knee OA respond better to mechanical interventions. Our primary aim is to identify subgroups with knee OA who respond favourably to mechanical interventions.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review to identify randomised clinical trials of any mechanical intervention for the treatment of knee OA. We will invite lead authors of eligible studies to share individual participant data (IPD). We will perform an IPD meta-analysis for each type of mechanical intervention to evaluate efficacy, with our main outcome being pain. Where IPD are not available, this will be achieved using aggregate data. We will then evaluate five potential treatment effect modifiers using a two-stage approach. If data permit, we will also evaluate whether biomechanics mediate the effects of mechanical interventions on pain in knee OA.Ethics and disseminationNo new data will be collected in this study. We will adhere to institutional, national and international regulations regarding the secure and confidential sharing of IPD, addressing ethics as indicated. We will disseminate findings via international conferences, open-source publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites serving the public and clinicians.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155466.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document