4.5 Review

Comparative Effectiveness of Care Coordination Interventions in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

期刊

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 12-23

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.025

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objective: To conduct a systematic review on the effectiveness of emergency department (ED) based care coordination interventions. Methods: We reviewed any randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental study indexed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, or Scopus that evaluated the effectiveness of ED-based care coordination interventions. To be included, interventions had to incorporate information from previous visits, provide educational services on continuing care, provide post-ED treatment plans, or transfer information to continuing care providers. Studies had to quantify information transfer or report ED revisits, hospitalizations, or follow-up rates. Randomized controlled trial quality was assessed with the Jadad score. Results: Of 23 included articles, 14 were randomized controlled trials and 9 were quasi-experimental studies. Randomized controlled trial quality ranged from 2 to 3 on a 5-point scale. The majority of the studies (17) were conducted at a single center. Of nineteen studies that developed post-ED plans, 12 were effective in improving follow-up rates or reducing repeated ED visits. Four studies found paradoxically higher ED visit rates. Of 4 that used educational services for continuing care, 2 were effective. Of the 2 evaluating information transfer, 1 was effective. One study assessed incorporating information from other sites and found higher rates of information transfer, but utilization was not studied. Conclusion: The majority of ED-based care coordination interventions focus on interfacing with outpatient providers, and about two thirds have been effective in increasing follow-up rates or reducing repeated ED utilization. Other types of interventions have shown similar effectiveness, but fewer have been studied. [Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:12-23.]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据