scholarly journals What evidence is there on the effectiveness of different models of delivering urgent care? A rapid review

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (43) ◽  
pp. 1-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janette Turner ◽  
Joanne Coster ◽  
Duncan Chambers ◽  
Anna Cantrell ◽  
Viet-Hai Phung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Service Planning ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Current Evidence Base

BackgroundIn 2013 NHS England set out its strategy for the development of an emergency and urgent care system that is more responsive to patients’ needs, improves outcomes and delivers clinically excellent and safe care. Knowledge about the current evidence base on models for provision of safe and effective urgent care, and the gaps in evidence that need to be addressed, can support this process.ObjectiveThe purpose of the evidence synthesis is to assess the nature and quality of the existing evidence base on delivery of emergency and urgent care services and identify gaps that require further primary research or evidence synthesis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Web of Science.MethodsWe have conducted a rapid, framework-based, evidence synthesis approach. Five separate reviews linked to themes in the NHS England review were conducted. One general and five theme-specific database searches were conducted for the years 1995–2014. Relevant systematic reviews and additional primary research papers were included and narrative assessment of evidence quality was conducted for each review.ResultsThe review was completed in 6 months. In total, 45 systematic reviews and 102 primary research studies have been included across all five reviews. The key findings for each review are as follows: (1) demand – there is little empirical evidence to explain increases in demand for urgent care; (2) telephone triage – overall, these services provide appropriate and safe decision-making with high patient satisfaction, but the required clinical skill mix and effectiveness in a system is unclear; (3) extended paramedic roles have been implemented in various health settings and appear to be successful at reducing the number of transports to hospital, making safe decisions about the need for transport and delivering acceptable, cost-effective care out of hospital; (4) emergency department (ED) – the evidence on co-location of general practitioner services with EDs indicates that there is potential to improve care. The attempt to summarise the evidence about wider ED operations proved to be too complex and further focused reviews are needed; and (5) there is no empirical evidence to support the design and development of urgent care networks.LimitationsAlthough there is a large body of evidence on relevant interventions, much of it is weak, with only very small numbers of randomised controlled trials identified. Evidence is dominated by single-site studies, many of which were uncontrolled.ConclusionsThe evidence gaps of most relevance to the delivery of services are (1) a requirement for more detailed understanding and mapping of the characteristics of demand to inform service planning; (2) assessment of the current state of urgent care network development and evaluation of the effectiveness of different models; and (3) expanding the current evidence base on existing interventions that are viewed as central to delivery of the NHS England plan by assessing the implications of increasing interventions at scale and measuring costs and system impact. It would be prudent to develop a national picture of existing pilot projects or interventions in development to support decisions about research commissioning.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme.

scholarly journals Polyphenols and Cognition In Humans: An Overview of Current Evidence from Recent Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Daniel Joseph Lamport ◽  
Claire Michelle Williams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cognitive Outcome ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Cognitive Benefits ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

There is increasing interest in the impact of dietary influences on the brain throughout the lifespan, ranging from improving cognitive development in children through to attenuating ageing related cognitive decline and reducing risk of neurodegenerative diseases. Polyphenols, phytochemicals naturally present in a host of fruits, vegetables, tea, cocoa and other foods, have received particular attention in this regard, and there is now a substantial body of evidence from experimental and epidemiological studies examining whether their consumption is associated with cognitive benefits. The purpose of this overview is to synthesise and evaluate the best available evidence from two sources, namely meta-analyses and systematic reviews, in order to give an accurate reflection of the current evidence base for an association between polyphenols and cognitive benefits. Four meta-analyses and thirteen systematic reviews published between 2017–2020 were included, and were categorised according to whether they reviewed specific polyphenol-rich foods and classes or all polyphenols. A requirement for inclusion was assessment of a behavioural cognitive outcome in humans. A clear and consistent theme emerged that whilst there is support for an association between polyphenol consumption and cognitive benefits, this conclusion is tentative, and by no means definitive. Considerable methodological heterogeneity was repeatedly highlighted as problematic such that the current evidence base does not support reliable conclusions relating to efficacy of specific doses, duration of treatment, or sensitivity in specific populations or certain cognitive domains. The complexity of multiple interactions between a range of direct and indirect mechanisms of action is discussed. Further research is required to strengthen the reliability of the evidence base.

scholarly journals Against the stream: early diagnosis of dementia, is it so desirable?

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Brayne ◽  
Sarah Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Early Diagnosis ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Dementia Diagnosis ◽  
Case Identification ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Diagnosis Of Dementia

SummaryThe Prime Minister's challenge on dementia called for improved dementia diagnosis rates, based on assumptions of benefit to individuals and those who care for them. Subsequent policies have led to increased target drives for clinical practice to achieve early diagnosis of dementia through intense case identification. However, the current evidence base and treatment options do not support screening for dementia, and there is little empirical evidence that such intensive case identification and early diagnosis for dementia is justified without a better understanding of the benefits, costs and potential harms to individuals and services.Declaration of interestNone.

scholarly journals P-26 Challenging the pressure on nhs resources: could 48-hour continuous subcutaneous infusions (CSCIS) help? a systematically-structured review of the current evidence base

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A9.3-A10
Author(s):  
James Baker ◽  
Andrew Dickman ◽  
Stephen Mason ◽  
John Ellershaw ◽  
Paul Skipper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Current Evidence Base

scholarly journals Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments

2014 ◽  
Vol 204 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay P. Singh ◽  
Seena Fazel ◽  
Ralitza Gueorguieva ◽  
Alec Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Study Heterogeneity

BackgroundRates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.AimsTo analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.MethodA systematic search of databases (1995–2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.ResultsInformation was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.ConclusionsAfter controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.

scholarly journals Toward the diagnosis of rare childhood genetic diseases: what do parents value most?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Pollard ◽  
Deirdre Weymann ◽  
Jessica Dunne ◽  
Fatemeh Mayanloo ◽  
John Buckell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Genetic Disease ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Genomic Testing ◽  
Current Evidence Base

AbstractGenomic testing is becoming routine for diagnosing rare childhood genetic disease. Evidence underlying sustainable implementation is limited, focusing on short-term endpoints such as diagnostic yield, unable to fully characterize patient and family valued outcomes. Although genomic testing is becoming widely available, evidentiary and outcomes uncertainty persist as key challenges for implementation. We examine whether the current evidence base reflects public tolerance for uncertainty for genomics to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. We conducted focus groups with general population parents in Vancouver, Canada, and Oxford, United Kingdom, to discuss expectations and concerns related to genomic testing to diagnose rare childhood genetic disease. Applying a purposive sampling technique, recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Thirty-three parents participated across four focus groups. Participants valued causal diagnoses alongside management strategies to improve patient health and wellbeing. Further, participants valued expanding the evidence base to reduce evidentiary uncertainty while ensuring security of information. Willingness to pay out of pocket for testing reflected perceived familial health benefit. Diagnostic yield fails to fully capture valued outcomes, and efforts to resolve uncertainty better reflect public priorities. Evaluations of genomic testing that fully integrate valued endpoints are necessary to ensure consistency with best practices and public willingness to accept the uncertain familial benefit.

scholarly journals SSRI use in pregnancy: Evaluating the risks and benefits

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Elsa Du Toit ◽  
Eileen Thomas ◽  
Liezl Koen ◽  
Bavi Vythilingum ◽  
Stoffel Grobler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antidepressant Treatment ◽  
Severe Depression ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Medication Effects ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Pregnancy And Lactation ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Risk Benefit Analysis

<p>Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants are considered the primary pharmacological treatment for moderate to severe depression during pregnancy.<span><em> </em></span>Data regarding the safety of their use during pregnancy remain controversial and conflicting. Decisions regarding the prescription of antidepressant treatment are often fraught with concern around potential harmful medication effects on the pregnancy, fetus and infant. Information on potential risks remains extremely varied and inconsistent across sources. This lack of clarity regarding drug safety brings significant uncertainty not only for treating physicians, but also for women seeking information about depression during pregnancy. This review aims to summarise and evaluate the current evidence base and to aid clinicians in performing a risk/benefit analysis for SSRI use during pregnancy and lactation.</p><div> </div>

scholarly journals Drug information update. Lithium and chronic kidney disease: Debates and dilemmas

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumeet Gupta ◽  
Udayan Khastgir
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
The Past ◽  
Current Evidence Base ◽  
Information Update ◽  
Resistant Depression

SummaryLithium is an established treatment for bipolar disorder and an augmenting agent for treatment-resistant depression. Despite awareness of renal adverse effects, including chronic kidney disease, for the past five decades, there has been a lack of research evidence. This has led to debates around the existence and magnitude of the risk. This article discusses the current evidence base regarding the link between lithium and chronic kidney disease, monitoring of renal functions and its clinical implications.

scholarly journals Encouraging the implementation of clinical standards into practice

2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 90-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Palmer ◽  
Paul Lelliott
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Clinical Standards ◽  
Current Evidence Base

The articles by Geddes & Wessely (2000, this issue) and Lelliott (2000, this issue) describe the current evidence base and guidelines from which clinical standards can be developed in mental health. They highlight some of the issues and complexity surrounding the development of standards. It could be argued, however, that an even greater challenge lies in getting clinical standards used in routine practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document