11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of ICU care bundles on long-term patient-relevant outcomes: a scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Care bundles are considered a key tool to improve bedside quality of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). We explored their effect on long-term patient-relevant outcomes.

          Design

          Systematic literature search and scoping review.

          Data sources

          We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, CDSR and CENTRAL for keywords of intensive care, care bundles, patient-relevant outcomes, and follow-up studies.

          Eligibility criteria

          Original articles with patients admitted to adult ICUs assessing bundle implementations and measuring long-term (ie, ICU discharge or later) patient-relevant outcomes (ie, mortality, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), care-related outcomes, adverse events, and social health).

          Data extraction and synthesis

          After dual, independent, two-stage selection and charting, eligible records were critically appraised and assessed for bundle type, implementation strategies, and effects on long-term patient-relevant outcomes.

          Results

          Of 2012 records, 38 met inclusion criteria; 55% (n=21) were before–after studies, 21% (n=8) observational cohort studies, 13% (n=5) randomised controlled trials, and 11% (n=4) had other designs. Bundles pertained to sepsis (n=11), neurocognition (n=6), communication (n=4), early rehabilitation (n=3), pharmacological discontinuation (n=3), ventilation (n=2) or combined bundles (n=9). Almost two-thirds of the studies reported on survival (n=24), 45% (n=17) on care-related outcomes (eg, discharge disposition), and 13% (n=5) of studies on HrQoL. Regarding PICS, 24% (n=9) assessed cognition, 13% (n=5) physical health, and 11% (n=4) mental health, up to 1 year after discharge. The effects of bundles on long-term patient-relevant outcomes was inconclusive, except for a positive effect of sepsis bundles on survival. The inconclusive effects may have been due to the high risk of bias in included studies and the variability in implementation strategies, instruments, and follow-up times.

          Conclusions

          There is a need to explore the long-term effects of ICU bundles on HrQoL and PICS. Closing this knowledge gap appears vital to determine if there is long-term patient value of ICU bundles.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

              Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2023
                17 February 2023
                : 13
                : 2
                : e070962
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM/CVK) , Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin , Berlin, Germany
                [2 ]departmentInstitute for Medical Knowledge Management , Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), Philipps-Universität Marburg , Marburg, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Claudia D Spies; claudia.spies@ 123456charite.de
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2228-3980
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6816-0623
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4928-7391
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3139-595X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-0495
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-070962
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070962
                9944310
                36806060
                b9fc25da-068a-4cc2-a7f8-c22d25f90311
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 12 December 2022
                : 01 February 2023
                Categories
                Intensive Care
                1506
                1707
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                adult intensive & critical care,quality in health care,quality of life
                Medicine
                adult intensive & critical care, quality in health care, quality of life

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content208

                Cited by4

                Most referenced authors2,408