How has the impact of ‘care pathway technologies’ on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

Implications for practice There is some evidence that ICPs may support certain elements of service integration in the context of stroke care. This seems to be as a result of their ability to support the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of resources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay. ICPs appear to be most successful in improving service coordination in the acute stroke context where patient care trajectories are predictable. Their value in the context of rehabilitation settings in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear. There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in bringing about behavioural changes in contexts where deficiencies in service provision have been identified. Their value in contexts where inter-professional working is well established is less clear. While earlier before and after studies show a reduction in length of stay in ICP-managed care, this may reflect wider healthcare trends, and the failure of later studies to demonstrate further reductions suggests that there may be limits as to how far this can continue to be reduced. There is some evidence to suggest that ICPs bring about improvements in documentation, but we do not know how far documented practice reflects actual practice. It is unclear how ICPs have their effects and the relative importance of the process of development and the artefact in use. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

Objectives 1. To systematically review all high quality studies which have evaluated the effectiveness of care pathway technologies on ‘service integration’ and its derivatives, i.e. seamless care, joined up working etc in stroke care. 2. To examine how elements of service integration are defined in such studies. 3. To examine the type of evidence utilised to measure service integration. 4. To analyse the weight of evidence used to support claims about the impact of care pathways on service integration. 5. To produce guidelines for the users of care pathways and researchers for evaluation purposes. Criteria for considering studies for this review Types of participants This review is concerned with the effects of care pathway technologies on service integration across the spectrum of stroke care and will not be restricted to a particular care setting. Only adult patients will be included in the review. Types of Interventions There is no explicit definition of care pathways in the literature and the problems in describing care pathways are caused by the many similar terms that exist. Examples of synonyms of care pathways include care maps, care protocols, critical paths, collaborative plan of care and multi-disciplinary action plans. For the purpose of this review, a “care pathway technology”, must meet the broad definition set out in the background section. Types of outcome measures Any impact on ‘service integration’ that is attributable to a care pathway technology. Due to the complex nature of service integration, we predict that some of these effects may warrant further unpacking, as the outcomes we are interested in may be embedded within the data. One aim of the review is to contribute to conceptual refinement in this area.

Care of stroke patients varies significantly between hospitals.1,2 Implementation of a stroke care pathway may be a method of promoting organized and efficient patient care that is based on the best-available evidence and clinical guidelines. This, in turn, could reduce variations in stroke care. A care pathway can be defined as a plan of care that is developed and used by a multidisciplinary team, and is applicable to more than 1 aspect of care. It can be a printed document or an electronic program, and it usually forms all or part of the patient’s case record. Care pathways are often used in conjunction with other tools such as case management, and they are intended to assist healthcare professionals in clinical decision-making.3,4 Care pathways are also known by other names such as clinical pathway, critical pathway, critical path method, care paths, and CareMaps. Despite the popularity of care pathways, the evidence to support their use is weak. This systematic review aims to assess the effects of care pathways, as compared with standard medical care, among patients admitted to hospital with acute stroke.5 We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialized Trials Register (last searched in May 2001), the Cochrane …

Section Editor: Graeme J. Hankey MD, FRCP Care pathways are structured care plans that are used by the different members of the multidisciplinary team and are usually implemented to manage more than one aspect of patient care (eg, diagnosis, investigation, acute stroke treatment). When used within a case management framework, care pathways can assist health care professionals with clinical decision-making, and they aim to promote organized and efficient patient care that is based on the best-available research evidence and clinical guidelines.1,2 A care pathway can take the form of a printed or electronic document, and it often replaces the patient’s case record for the duration of the hospital stay. Many hospitals have adopted this tool, often as one of the components of a continuous quality improvement scheme, with an aim to improve the quality of stroke care, reduce variation of standards, minimize resource utilization, and educate health care staff.3,4 But is there sufficient evidence to support the use of care pathways for the management of stroke patients? The first Cochrane review of in-hospital care pathways for stroke found some evidence that care pathways may increase the use of certain investigations and reduce the likelihood of urinary tract infections and readmission to hospital.5 However, this benefit …

Critical pathways, also known as critical paths, clinical pathways, or care paths, are management plans that display goals for patients and provide the sequence and timing of actions necessary to achieve these goals with optimal efficiency.1 As competition in the healthcare industry has increased, managers have embraced critical pathways as a method to reduce variation in care, decrease resource utilization, and potentially improve healthcare quality. Cardiovascular medicine in particular is an area in which critical pathways have been embraced. This is due in part to the high volume and high cost associated with cardiovascular diseases and procedures. In addition, the relatively mature guideline process has also contributed to the growth in use of critical pathways in cardiology. Although anchored in clinical guidelines, the critical pathway is a distinct tool that details processes of care and highlights inefficiencies regardless of whether there is evidence to warrant changes in those processes. Clinical guidelines, on the other hand, are consensus statements that are systematically developed to assist practitioners in making patient management decisions related to specific clinical circumstances.2 Although clinical guidelines can and should be used in pathway development, the majority of processes included in a pathway have not been rigorously tested and are generally not addressed in guidelines. Another term that should also be distinguished from critical pathways is clinical protocols. Protocols are treatment recommendations that are often based on guidelines. Like the critical pathway, the goal of the clinical protocol may be to decrease treatment variation. However, protocols are most often focused on guideline compliance rather than the identification of rate-limiting steps in the patient care process. In further contrast to critical pathways, protocols may or may not include a continuous monitoring and data-evaluation component. Critical pathway techniques were first developed for use in industry as a tool to …

Background Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) are management technologies which formalise multi-disciplinary team-working and enable professionals to examine and address how they articulate their respective roles, responsibilities and activities. They map out a patient’s journey and aim to have: ‘the right people, doing the right things, in the right order, at the right time, in the right place, with the right outcome’. Initially introduced into the health care context in the 1980s in the US, enthusiasm for ICPs now extends across the world. They have been promoted as a means to realise: evidence based practice, clinical governance, continuity of care, patient empowerment, efficiency gains, service re-engineering, role realignment and staff education. While ICPs are now being developed and implemented across international health care arena, evidence to support their use is equivocal and understanding of their ‘active ingredients’ is poor. Reviews of evidence of ICP effectiveness have focused on their use in specific patient populations. However, ICPs are ‘complex interventions’ and are increasingly being implemented for a variety of purposes in a range of organisational contexts. Identification of the circumstances in which ICPs are effective is the first step towards developing hypotheses about their active ingredients and the generative mechanisms by which they have their effects. This review was designed to address a slightly different set of questions to those that typify systematic reviews of ICP effectiveness. Rather than simply asking: ‘Are ICPs effective?’, our concern was to identify the circumstances in which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts. In addition to identifying evidence of ICP effectiveness, the review therefore required attention to the contexts in which ICPs are utilised, the purposes to which they are put and the factors critical to their success. In framing the review in this way we are drawing on the insights afforded by Pawson and Tilley’s realistic evaluation methodology. The underlying rationale for this approach is that if we know and understand how different interventions produce varying effects in different circumstances, we are better able to decide what policies/services to implement in what conditions. Objectives To identify the purposes for which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts; To identify the purposes for which ICPs are not effective, for whom and in what contexts; To produce recommendations on how ICPs should be used in the full range of health care settings. Inclusion Criteria Types of participants The review focused on adults and children that accessed health care settings in which ICPs are used. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest For the purposes of the review, the ICP had to meet the defining characteristics set by the European Pathway Association (EPA): An explicit statement of the goals and key elements of care based on evidence, best practice and patient expectations; Facilitation of communication, coordination of roles, and sequencing of activities of the multidisciplinary care team, patients and their relatives; The documentation, monitoring, and evaluation of variances and outcomes; The identification of the appropriate resources. Here multidisciplinary is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines. Types of outcomes Outcome measures were determined by the purposes of the studies selected for review and the type of study participant. Specific clinical outcomes were determined by the group of patients for which the ICP was developed. Types of studies To address the aims of the review it was necessary to examine evidence of ICP effectiveness across the full spectrum of contexts in which they are in use. In order to keep the study to a manageable scale we limited its scope to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs reported TRUNCATED AT 600 WORDS.

Adaptation of Adult Pathways to Improve the Care of Adult Patients at Pediatric Hospitals.

Aim Integrated care pathways (ICP) are management technologies which formalise multidisciplinary team-working and enable professionals to examine their roles and responsibilities. ICPs are now being implemented across international healthcare arena, but evidence to support their use is equivocal. The aim of this study was to identify the circumstances in which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts. Methods A systematic review of high-quality randomised controlled trials published between 1980 and 2008 (March) evaluating ICP use in child and adult populations in the full range of healthcare settings. 1 For relatively predictable trajectories of care ICPs can be effective in supporting proactive care management and ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and/or assessments in a timely manner. This can lead to improvements in service quality and service efficiency without adverse consequences for patients. 2 ICPs are an effective mechanism for promoting adherence to guidelines or treatment protocols thereby reducing variation in practice. 3 ICPs can be effective in improving documentation of treatment goals, documentation of communication with patients, carers and health professionals. 4 ICPs can be effective in improving physician agreement about treatment options. 5 ICPs can be effective in supporting decision-making when they incorporate a decision-aide. 6 The evidence considered in this review indicates that ICPs may be particularly effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction, where there is scope for improvement or where roles are new. 7 Even in contexts in which health professionals are already experienced with a particular pathway, ICP use brings additional beneficial effects in directing professional practice in the desired direction. 8 ICPs may be less effective in bringing about service quality and efficiency gains in variable patient trajectories. 9 ICPs may be less effective in bringing about quality improvements in circumstances in which services are already based on best evidence and multidisciplinary working is well established. 10 Depending on their purpose, the benefits of ICPs may be greater for certain patient subgroups than others. 11 We do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of their reported benefits. 12 ICPs may need supporting mechanisms to underpin their implementation and ensure their adoption in practice, particularly in circumstances in which ICP use is a significant change in organisational culture. 13 ICP documentation can introduce scope for new kinds of error. Conclusions ICPs are most effective in contexts where patient care trajectories are predictable. Their value in settings in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear. ICPs are most effective in bringing about behavioural changes where there are identified deficiencies in services; their value in contexts where inter-professional working is well established is less certain. None of the studies reviewed included an economic evaluation and thus it is not known whether their benefits justify the costs of their implementation.

Care pathways for acute stroke care and stroke rehabilitation: From theory to evidence

Centralising acute stroke care and moving care to the community in a Danish health region: Challenges in implementing a stroke care reform

Introduction:The distinctive characteristics of the German health system are medical progress and financial pressure—and this is especially true of the hospitals. These challenges must be met by strategic management instruments for quality assurance, and by reducing costs.Purpose:This article presents the instrument “clinical pathway” (also known as “clinical treatment pathway”) and describes the possibilities it offers, both for quality assurance and risk management, and for cost reduction. The clinical pathway presented here will be that for “multimodal pain therapy”, as used in the context of acute inpatient care in Germany.Methods:A general presentation of the risks in hospital is followed by consideration of the risks associated with core processes. A comprehensive total cost analysis is performed for those patients who meet the pathway entry criteria and who fulfil the requirements for the structure of care provided within multimodal pain therapy.Discussion and Conclusion:Multimodal pain therapy places high demands on the structural, procedural and outcome quality of the medical, nursing and therapeutic services provided, and these demands are reflected in high costs for the provision of this care. The treatment process involves many different professional groups. These complex interfaces can potentially generate risks, which can lead to the possibility of legal liability. A clinical pathway must structure the core process and then combine elements of quality assurance in order to optimise patient care and minimise risk. The examination of costs reveals significant potential savings (patients with clinical pathway: EUR 3086±212; patients without clinical pathway: EUR 3774±460; Mann-Whitney U test; p<0.001). For the managers of a hospital, the clinical pathway represents a strategic management instrument that can serve for continual cost control and cost reduction, and can contribute in the form of quality assurance towards a transparent provision of services.

Integration of community mental health services is a key policy objective that aims to increase quality and efficiency of care. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) are a mechanism designed to formalise multi-agency working at an operational level and are currently being applied to mental health services. Evidence regarding the impact of this tool to support joint working is mixed, and there is limited evidence regarding the suitability of ICPs for complex, community-based services. The present study was set in one primary care trust (PCT) in Scotland that is currently implementing an ICP for community mental health teams (CMHTs) across the region. The aim of the study was to investigate professionals' experiences and views on the implementation of an ICP within adult CMHTs in order to generate learning points for other organisations which are considering developing and implementing such systems. The study used qualitative methods which comprised of individual interviews with three CMHT leaders and two service development managers, as well as group interviews with members of four adult CMHTs. Data was analysed using the constant comparison method. Participants reported positive views regarding joint working and the role of an ICP in theory. However, in practice, teams were not implementing the ICP. Lack of integration at higher organisational levels was found to create conflicts within the teams which became explicit in response to the ICP. Implementation was also hindered by lack of resources for ongoing support, team development and change management. In conclusion, the study suggests that operational systems such as ICPs do not address and cannot overcome wider organisational barriers to integration of mental health services. Integrated care pathways need to be developed with strategic input as well as practitioner involvement and ownership. Team development, education about integration and change management are essential if ICPs are to foster and support joint working in integrated teams.

End-of-Life Care Pathways in Acute and Hospice Care: An Integrative Review

BackgroundReduced upper extremity function is one of the most common impairments after stroke and has previously been reported in approximately 70-80% of patients in the acute stage. Acute care for stroke has changes over the last years, with more people being admitted to a stroke unit as well as use of thrombolysis. The aim of the present study was to describe baseline characteristics, care pathway and discharge status in an unselected group of patients with first occasion of stroke who were at a stroke unit within 72 hours after stroke and also to investigate the frequency of impaired arm and hand function. A second aim was to explore factors associated with impaired upper extremity function and the impact of impairment on the patient’s outcome.MethodsPatients over 18 years of age with first ever stroke, living in a geographical catchment area, being at the stroke unit within 72 hours after onset, with no prior upper extremity impairment were included. Baseline characteristics, arm and hand function within 72 hours, stroke outcome and care pathway in the acute phase were described, by gathering information retrospectively from the patients’ charts. Ischemic strokes were categorized according to the Bamford classification and the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment criteria.ResultsOf the 969 patients with first ever stroke who were screened, 642 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. According to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), the patients had a mean score of 6.0, median 3.0, at arrival to the hospital. Ischemic stroke was most frequent in the anterior circulation (87.7%). Within 72 hours after stroke onset 48.0% of the patients had impaired arm and hand function and this was positively associated with higher age (p < 0.004), longer stay in the acute care (p < 0.001) and mortality in acute care (p < 0.001). Directly admitted to the stroke unit were 89.1% of the patients and 77.1% received hospital care on same day as stroke onset. Mean length of stay in the stroke unit was 9.9 days, 56.8% of the patients were discharged directly home from the stroke unit. Mortality within 72 hours after stroke onset was 5.0%.ConclusionImpaired arm and hand function is present in 48% of the patients in a non selected population with first ever stroke, estimated within 72 hours after onset. This is less than previously reported. Impaired arm and hand function early after stroke is associated with higher age, longer stay in the acute care, and higher mortality within the acute hospital care.