BACKGROUND: Numerous interventions for pressure injury prevention have been developed, including care bundles.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injury prevalence, incidence, and hospital-acquired pressure injury rate in hospitalised patients.
METHODS: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (via PubMed), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and two registries were searched (from 2009 to September 2023).
METHODS: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies with a comparison group published in English after 2008 were included. Studies reporting on the frequency of pressure injuries where the number of patients was not the numerator or denominator, or where the denominator was not reported, and single subgroups of hospitalised patients were excluded. Educational programmes targeting healthcare professionals and bundles targeting specific types of pressure injuries were excluded.
METHODS: Bundles with ≥3 components directed towards patients and implemented in ≥2 hospital services were included.
METHODS: Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken independently by two researchers. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
RESULTS: Nine studies (seven non-randomised with historical controls; two randomised) conducted in eight countries were included. There were four to eight bundle components; most were core, and only a few were discretionary. Various strategies were used prior to (six studies), during (five studies) and after (two studies) implementation to embed the bundles. The pooled risk ratio for pressure injury prevalence (five non-randomised studies) was 0.55 (95 % confidence intervals 0.29-1.03), and for hospital-acquired pressure injury rate (five non-randomised studies) it was 0.31 (95 % confidence intervals 0.12-0.83). All non-randomised studies were at high risk of bias, with very low certainty of evidence. In the two randomised studies, the care bundles had non-significant effects on hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence density, but data could not be pooled.
CONCLUSIONS: Whilst some studies showed decreases in pressure injuries, this evidence was very low certainty. The potential benefits of adding emerging evidence-based components to bundles should be considered. Future effectiveness studies should include contemporaneous controls and the development of a comprehensive, theory and evidence-informed implementation plan.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO CRD42023423058.
CONCLUSIONS: Pressure injury prevention care bundles decrease hospital-acquired pressure injuries, but the certainty of this evidence is very low.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent among in-hospital patients with high incidence and mortality. Implementing a series of evidence-based AKI care bundles may improve patient outcomes by reducing changeable standards of care. The aim of this meta-analysis was therefore to appraise the influences of AKI care bundles on patient outcomes.
METHODS: We explored three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and two Chinese databases (Wanfang Data and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for studies from databases inception until November 30, 2022, comparing the impact of different AKI care bundles with usual standards of care in patients with or at risk for AKI. The study quality of non-randomized controlled trials and randomized controlled trials was evaluated by the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tool and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between studies was appraised by Cochran\'s Q test and I2 statistics. The possible origins of heterogeneity between studies were assessed adopting Meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger regression and Begg correlation tests were performed to discover potential publication bias. Data analysis was completed by software (RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0). The primary outcome was short- or long-term mortality. The secondary outcomes involved the incidence and severity of AKI.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies containing 25,690 patients and 25,903 AKI episodes were included. In high-risk AKI patients determined by novel biomarkers, electronic alert or risk prediction score, the application of AKI care bundles significantly reduced the AKI incidence (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 84%) and AKI severity (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.89; p = 0.01; I2 = 65%). No strong evidence is available to prove that care bundles can significantly reduce mortality (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.58-2.30; p = 0.68; I2 = 97%).
CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of AKI care bundles in routine clinical practice can effectively improve the outcomes of patients with or at-risk of AKI. However, the accumulated evidence is limited and not strong enough to make definite conclusions.

OBJECTIVE: Care bundles are a promising approach to reducing postpartum hemorrhage-related morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of care bundles for postpartum hemorrhage prevention and/or treatment.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Maternity and Infant Care Database, and Global Index Medicus (inception to June 9, 2023) and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (last 5 years) using a phased search strategy, combining terms for postpartum hemorrhage and care bundles.
METHODS: Peer-reviewed studies evaluating postpartum hemorrhage-related care bundles were included. Care bundles were defined as interventions comprising ≥3 components implemented collectively, concurrently, or in rapid succession. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies (controlled or uncontrolled) were eligible.
METHODS: Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (nonrandomized studies). For controlled studies, we reported risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, with certainty of evidence determined using GRADE. For uncontrolled studies, we used effect direction tables and summarized results narratively.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included for analysis. For prevention-only bundles (2 studies), low-certainty evidence suggests possible benefits in reducing blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and intensive care unit stay, and maternal well-being. For treatment-only bundles (9 studies), high-certainty evidence shows that the E-MOTIVE intervention reduced risks of composite severe morbidity (risk ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.50) and blood transfusion for bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage, severe postpartum hemorrhage, and mean blood loss. One nonrandomized trial and 7 uncontrolled studies suggest that other postpartum hemorrhage treatment bundles might reduce blood loss and severe postpartum hemorrhage, but this is uncertain. For combined prevention/treatment bundles (11 studies), low-certainty evidence shows that the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative care bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.72). Ten uncontrolled studies variably showed possible benefits, no effects, or harms for other bundle types. Nearly all uncontrolled studies did not use suitable statistical methods for single-group pretest-posttest comparisons and should thus be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSIONS: The E-MOTIVE intervention improves postpartum hemorrhage-related outcomes among women delivering vaginally, and the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative bundle may reduce severe maternal morbidity. Other bundle designs warrant further effectiveness research before implementation is contemplated.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the body of literature examining episode-based bundled payment models effect on health care spending, utilization, and quality of care for surgical conditions.
UNASSIGNED: Episode-based bundled payments were developed as a strategy to lower healthcare spending and improve coordination across phases of healthcare. Surgical conditions may be well-suited targets for bundled payments because they often have defined periods of care and widely variable healthcare spending. In bundled payment models, hospitals receive financial incentives to reduce spending on care provided to patients during a predefined clinical episode. Despite the recent proliferation of bundles for surgical conditions, a collective understanding of their effect is not yet clear.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, and four databases were queried from inception through September 27, 2021, with search strings for bundled payments and surgery. All studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion.
RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded a total of 879 unique articles of which 222 underwent a full-text review and 28 met final inclusion criteria. Of these studies, most (23 of 28) evaluated the impact of voluntary bundled payments in orthopedic surgery and found that bundled payments are associated with reduced spending on total care episodes, attributed primarily to decreases in post-acute care spending. Despite reduced spending, clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, complications, and mortality) were not worsened by participation. Evidence supporting the effects of bundled payments on cost and clinical outcomes in other non-orthopedic surgical conditions remains limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Present evaluations of bundled payments primarily focus on orthopedic conditions and demonstrate cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. Evidence for the effect of bundles on other surgical conditions and implications for quality and access to care remain limited.

BACKGROUND: To assess the quality change of our single-center pediatric colonoscopy after applying bundle for bowel preparation and general anesthesia and centralize the procedure using terminal ileum (TI) intubation rate as the main indicator.
METHODS: All elective colonoscopies performed for patients younger than 18 years old in MacKay Memorial Hospital from July 2015 through June 2020 (assigned to group 1, before bundle) and from August 2020 through July 2021 (assigned to group 2, after bundle) were retrospectively reviewed for demographic characteristics, indications, bowel preparation agent and cleansing level, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, maximum intestinal level reached, and cecal intubation and total procedure time. Statistical analysis was done using P value < 0.05 considered to be significant.
RESULTS: Analysis included 45 and 32 colonoscopies in group 1 and 2, respectively. Bloody stool was the most frequent indication in both groups. Both TI intubation rate (42.2 % vs. 75.0 %, P = 0.004) and biopsy rate (45.0 % vs. 75.9 %, P = 0.01) increased significantly from group 1 to group 2. The narrower standard deviation of bowel preparation score (1.93 vs. 1.15) and total procedure time (37.71 vs. 22.29) in group 2 indicated a more stable quality, although the mean showed no difference. There was no statistical difference in age, gender, body weight, cecal intubation rate, or cecal intubation time.
CONCLUSIONS: A higher TI intubation rate and biopsy rate indicated an improved quality of pediatric colonoscopy after applying bundle including bowel preparation and general anesthesia, with additional centralization.

Various approaches have been suggested to identify acute kidney injury (AKI) early and to initiate kidney-protective measures in patients at risk or with AKI. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether care bundles improve kidney outcomes in these patients.
We conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of AKI care bundles with or without urinary biomarkers in the recognition and management of AKI. The main outcomes were major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) consisting of moderate-severe AKI, receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality.
Out of 7434 abstracts screened, 946 published studies were identified. Thirteen studies [five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight non-RCTs] including 16,540 patients were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed a lower incidence of MAKE in the AKI care bundle group [odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.81] with differences in all 3 individual outcomes [moderate-severe AKI (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.82), RRT (OR 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46-0.88) and mortality]. Subgroup analysis of the RCTs, all adopted biomarker-based approach, decreased the risk of MAKE (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74). Network meta-analysis could reveal that the incorporation of biomarkers in care bundles carried a significantly lower risk of MAKE when compared to care bundles without biomarkers (OR = 0.693, 95% CI = 0.50-0.96), while the usual care subgroup had a significantly higher risk (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.09-1.52).
Our meta-analysis demonstrated that care bundles decreased the risk of MAKE, moderate-severe AKI and need for RRT in AKI patients. Moreover, the inclusion of biomarkers in care bundles had a greater impact than care bundles without biomarkers.

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.
Systematic literature search and scoping review.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.

Rising health-care expenditures and payer dissatisfaction with traditional models of reimbursement have driven an interest in alternative payment model initiatives.
Bundled payments, an alternative payment model, have been introduced for total joint replacement in Sweden, the United States, and Canada to help to curb costs, with varying degrees of success.
Outpatient total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty are becoming increasingly common and provide value for patients and payers, but have negatively impacted providers participating in bundled payment models due to considerable losses and decreased reimbursement.
A fine balance exists between achieving cost savings for payers and enticing participation by providers in bundled payment models.
The design of each model is key to payer, provider, and patient satisfaction and should feature comprehensive coverage for a full cycle of care whether it is in the inpatient or outpatient setting, is linked to quality and patient-reported outcomes, features appropriate risk adjustment, and sets limits on responsibility for unrelated complications and extreme outlier events.

BACKGROUND: Care bundles were found to improve postoperative outcomes in elective surgery. However, in major emergency general surgery studies show a divergent impact on mortality and length of stay. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate associations between care bundles and mortality, complications, and length of stay when applied in major emergency general surgery.
METHODS: A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase was performed on the May 1, 2021. Only comparative studies on care bundles in major emergency general surgery were included. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed on 30-d mortality. We undertook a narrative approach of long-term mortality, complications, and length of stay.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 13 studies with 35,771 patients demonstrated that care bundles in emergency surgery were not associated with a significant reduction in odds of 30-d mortality (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.03). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was underpowered with a minimum of 78,901 patients required for firm conclusions. Seven studies reported complication rates whereof six reported lower complication rates using care bundles.
CONCLUSIONS: Care bundles were reported to decrease postoperative complications in five out of seven studies and seven out of 11 studies reported a shortening in length of stay.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of ventilator care bundles has remained suboptimal. However, it is unclear whether improving adherence has a positive relationship with patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most effective implementation strategies to improve adherence to ventilator bundles and to investigate the relationship between adherence to ventilator bundles and patient outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search from the inception of ventilator care bundles 2001 to January 2021 of relevant databases, screening and data extraction according to Cochrane methodology.
RESULTS: In total, 6035 records were screened, and 24 studies met the eligibility criteria. The implementation strategies were provider-level interventions (n = 15), included educational activities, checklist, and audit/feedback. Organizational-level interventions include (n = 8) included change of medical record system and multidisciplinary team. System-level intervention (n = 1) had motivation and reward. The most common strategies were education, checklists, audit feedback, which are probably effective in improving adherence. We could not perform a meta-analysis due to heterogeneity of the strategies and types of adherence measurement. Most studies (n = 7) had a high risk of bias. There were some conflicting results in determining the associations between adherence and patient outcomes because of the poor quality of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted interventions are likely to be effective for consistent improvement in adherence. It remains uncertain whether improvements in adherence have positive outcomes on patients due to limited evidence of low to moderate uncertainty. We recommend the need for robust research methodology to assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies on improving adherence and patient outcomes.