OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate missed care measurement approaches and their application in long-term aged care (LTAC) settings.
METHODS: Systematic review using Tawfik\'s guideline.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL and ProQuest were searched. Supplemental searching was from reference lists of retrieved records, first authors\' ORCID homepages and Google advanced search for grey literature. Search limitations were English language, published between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2022.
METHODS: COVIDENCE was utilized for screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. JBI Critical Appraisal Tools and COSMIN Risk of Bias Tool were used for quality appraisal. Data were summarized and synthesized using narrative analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-four publications across 11 regions were included, with two principal methods of missed care measurement: modified standard scales and tailored specific approaches. They were applied inconsistently and generated diverse measurement outcomes. There were challenges even with the most commonly used tool, the BERNCA-NH, including absence of high-quality verification through comparative analysis against an established \'gold standard\', reliance on self-administration, incomplete assessment of constructs and inadequate exploration of psychometric properties.
CONCLUSIONS: Globally, there are deficiencies in the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of the instruments measuring missed care in LTAC settings. Further research on theoretical and practical perspectives is required.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted a critical need to establish a standardized, validated approach to measure missed care in LTAC settings. This review calls for collaborative efforts by researchers, clinical staff and policymakers to develop and implement evidence-based practices as a way of safeguarding the well-being of older clients living in LTAC settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements of missed care in LTAC settings rely on adapting acute care tools. There is a critical gap in measuring missed care in LTAC settings. Developing a new tool could improve care quality and safety in LTAC settings globally.
UNASSIGNED: Adhered to PRISMA guideline.
UNASSIGNED: No patient or public contribution.

Effective communication between patients and healthcare providers is essential for a positive patient experience (PE), and improving patient-centered care (PCC) involves many factors. This study aimed to (1) identify the factors that affect PE improvement, (2) reflect patients and healthcare providers\' perspectives on the factors\' importance, and (3) present a structural model for improving PCC. A systematic review of empirical studies that specified PE factors was conducted. Studies that did not reflect users\' perspectives and non-empirical studies were excluded. The literature was searched using Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Taylor and Francis online journal. The MMAT 2018 checklist was used to assess bias in the included studies, and frequency, content, and thematic analyses were employed to synthesize the results, yielding 25 articles. The 80 PE factors identified from the analyses were categorized into six categories: Practice, Physical Needs, Psychological Needs, Social Needs, Practical Needs, and Information Needs. From a user perspective, patients emphasized professional, continuous, and comprehensive service delivery, whereas healthcare providers stressed efficient system improvements and positive provider-patient relationships. We propose a structured model for PCC improvement using a service blueprint and system map. The PCC model provides an overview of the interactions and the roles of all stakeholders regarding quality of care to improve healthcare.

UNASSIGNED: Evidence-based practice has developed over the last 30 years as a tool for the best possible nursing care. Nevertheless, many nurses do not regularly participate in the evidence-based practice process. Barriers to participation include nurses\' self-perceived ability in successfully fulfilling evidence-based practice-related tasks (self-efficacy) and their expectations of the positive outcomes of such tasks (outcome expectancy). To evaluate progress and provide feedback to professionals, monitoring the levels of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy with validated instruments is desirable. A comprehensive overview of the psychometric properties of such instruments is lacking.
UNASSIGNED: To determine the psychometric properties of instruments designed to measure nurses\' self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review was performed on studies reporting psychometric properties of instruments that measure self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in EBP. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched up to March 2020. Studies that reported psychometric properties on eligible scales and studied nurses or other healthcare professionals were included. Psychometric properties included content validity, construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist and criteria for good measurement properties were applied independently by two reviewers. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183069).
UNASSIGNED: Eleven scales measuring self-efficacy or a similar construct and one scale measuring outcome expectancy were identified. The vast majority of the research focused on nurses. Internal consistency and structural validity were the most frequently reported properties, though the recommended confirmative factor analysis to verify the structural validity was rarely performed correctly. In addition, most studies that reported on construct validity did not hypothesise on the expected strength or direction of an effect before the data analysis. Responsiveness was not typically reported or was incorrectly studied. The included articles showed a high quality of evidence for four scales on structural validity and internal consistency. The Self-Efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice Activities scale showed the best content validity and was accompanied by an Outcome Expectations of Evidence-Based Practice scale. Both scales met the COSMIN standards for construct validity with high-quality evidence.
UNASSIGNED: In light of the evidence, the Self-Efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice Activities scale is considered promising, and along with the accompanying Outcome Expectations of Evidence-Based Practice scale, appears capable of accurately measuring both self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. The use of these scales is recommended, and further research should be conducted on the responsiveness of the scales.

OBJECTIVE: A comprehensive medication history can contribute to safe therapy. Many approaches aiming to improve medication history taking require significant human resources. To design an efficient process that delivers high-quality medication histories, the individual requirements and resources of a given setting need to be considered. We aimed to provide an overview of existing approaches to medication history taking and their performance in different settings to potentially support the selection of an appropriate procedure.
METHODS: We searched 3 literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) for publications on approaches to medication history taking and analyzed them with regard to their key components as well as the setting, patient population, assessed outcomes, and efficacy.
RESULTS: In total, 65 publications were included and analyzed. The majority of the reported approaches relied on involvement of dedicated staff (n = 43), followed by process-oriented interventions (eg, checklists; n = 15) and information technology (IT)-guided interventions (n = 11). A mean (SD) of 6 (2.9) outcomes were described in each study. Medication discrepancies were reported in 89% of all studies, yet about 75 different descriptions of this outcome were used, making it difficult to compare study results. Only 11 studies applied a sample size calculation and statistical tests. Of those, 10 reported a positive effect of their respective intervention on the quality of medication histories.
CONCLUSIONS: Most approaches focused on pharmacy staff, which are associated with considerable cost and resources. Therefore, IT-based approaches and patient engagement should be investigated as cost-effective alternatives and tested for superiority in the same setting. Reporting guidelines and standardized methodology are needed to improve the comparability of such studies.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a serious complication requiring a complex management and have a high societal impact. Quality monitoring systems to optimize diabetic foot care exist, but a formal and more evidence-based approach to develop quality indicators (QIs) is lacking. We aimed to identify a set of candidate indicators for diabetic foot care by adopting an evidence-based methodology.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across four academic databases: PubMed, Embase CINAHL and Cochrane Library. Studies that reported evidence-based interventions related to organization or delivery of diabetic foot care were searched. Data from the eligible studies were summarized and used to formulate process and structure indicators. The evidence for each candidate QI was described in a methodical and transparent manner. The review process was reported according to the \"Preferred Reported Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis\" (PRISMA) statements and its extension for scoping reviews.
RESULTS: In total, 981 full-text articles were screened, and 322 clinical studies were used to formulate 42 candidate QIs.
CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based approach could be used to select candidate indicators for diabetic foot ulcer care, relating to the following domains: wound healing interventions, peripheral artery disease, offloading, secondary prevention, and interventions related to organization of care. In a further step, the feasibility of the identified set of indicators will be assessed by a multidisciplinary panel of diabetic foot care stakeholders.

In Cuba, there is neither a registry of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), nor are analysis of performance measures widely reported.
A review of Cuban studies of patients with STEMI was carried out to describe quality of medical care.
Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and SciELO, as well as archives of national journals, were all searched for articles on STEMI in Cuba, from 2000 to March 2020. They were included if they reported number or percentage of application of reperfusion therapy; administration of aspirin, enalapril-captopril (ACEI) or beta-blockers; status of patients at discharge; and patient or system delay times. Finally, 17 reports with 7823 patients were included.
Thrombolytic therapy was administered to 3991 patients (51%), and 695 patients (8.9%) died. Only four studies, with 880 patients, presented data about prescription of ACEI, aspirin, and beta-blockers, which were administered to 381 (45.3%), 824 (93.6%), 464 (52.7%) patients, respectively. Coronary intervention was reported in 5 studies with 3422 patients, being performed in 661 (19.3%).  Conclusions: Quality of care of patients with STEMI seems to be poorer than reported in similar scenarios. Thrombolytic administration is still low, although mortality decreases in this period. Other pharmacological treatments were insufficiently fulfilled.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization review (PAR), in the United States, is a process that was initially intended to focus on hospital admissions and costly high-acuity care. Over time, payors have broadened the scope of PAR to include imaging studies, prescriptions, and routine treatment. The potential detrimental effect of PAR on health care has recently been brought into the limelight, but its impact on orthopedic subspecialty care remains unclear. This study investigated the denial rate, the duration of care delay, and the administrative burden of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care.
METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed analyzing the PAR process. Orthopedic shoulder and/or sports subspecialty practices from 6 states monitored payor-mandated PAR during the course of providing routine patient care. The insurance carrier (traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, worker\'s compensation, or government payor [ie, Tricare, Veterans Affairs]), location of service, rate of approval or denial, time to approval or denial, and administrative time required to complete process were all recorded and evaluated.
RESULTS: Of 1065 total PAR requests, we found a 1.5% (16/1065) overall denial rate for advanced imaging or surgery when recommended by an orthopedic subspecialist. Commercial and Medicaid insurance resulted in a small but statistically significantly higher rate of denial compared to traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, worker\'s compensation, or governmental insurance (P < .001). The average administrative time spent on a single PAR was 19.5 minutes, and patients waited an average of 2.2 days to receive initial approval. Managed Medicare, commercial insurance, worker\'s compensation, and Medicaid required approximately 3-4 times more administrative time to process a PAR than to traditional Medicare or other governmental insurance (P < .001). After controlling for the payor, we identified a significant difference in approval or denial based on geographic location (P < .001). An appeal resulted in a relatively low rate of subsequent denial (20%). However, approximately a third of all appeals remained in limbo for 30 days or more after the initial request.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest prospective analysis to date of the impact of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care in the United States. Nearly all PAR requests are eventually approved when recommended by orthopedic subspecialists, despite requiring significant resource use and delaying care. Current PAR practices constitute an unnecessary process that increases administrative burden and negatively impacts access to orthopedic subspecialty care. As health care shifts to value-based care, PAR should be called into question, as it does not seem to add value but potentially negatively impacts cost and timeliness of care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare stakeholders in the Netherlands came to an agreement in 2022 to deal with present and future challenges in healthcare. Among others, this agreement contains clear statements regarding the concentration of trauma patients, including the minimal required number of annual severe trauma patients for Major Trauma Centers. This review investigates the effects of trauma patient volumes on several domains of the quality of healthcare.
METHODS: PubMed was searched; studies published during the last 10 years reporting quantitative data on trauma patient volume and quality of healthcare were included. Results were summarized and categorized into the quality domains of healthcare.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included with a total of 1,517,848 patients. A positive association between trauma patient volume and survival was observed in 11/13 studies with adjusted analyses. Few studies addressed other quality domains: efficiency (n = 5), safety (n = 2), and time aspects of care (n = 4). None covered people-centeredness, equitability, or integrated care.
CONCLUSIONS: Most studies showed a better survival of trauma patients when treated in high-volume hospitals compared to lower volume hospitals. However, the ideal threshold could not be determined. The association between trauma volume and other domains of the quality of healthcare remains unclear.

BACKGROUND: There are challenges in healthcare service delivery in rural areas, and this may be especially true for persons with dementia, who have higher needs to access to the healthcare system, and may have difficulties to commute easily and safely to these services. There is a growing body of literature regarding geographical disparities, but there is no comprehensive systematic review of geographical differences in persons with dementia across all domains of care quality. Therefore, the objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on rural and urban differences in quality of dementia care outcomes of persons with dementia across all quality-of-care domains.
METHODS: We performed a digital search in Ovid MEDLINE on July 16, 2019, updated on May 3, 2021, for French or English records. We selected studies that reported outcome from at least one domain of quality of dementia care (Access, Integration, Effective Care, Efficient Care, Population Health, Safety, and Patient-Centered) in both rural and urban persons with dementia or caregivers. We used rigorous, systematic methods for screening, selection, data extraction and we analyzed outcomes reported by at least two studies using vote counting and appraised the certainty of evidence. Finally, we explored sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: From the 38 included studies, we found differences in many dementia care domains. Rural persons with dementia had higher mortality rates (Population Health), lower visits to any physicians (Access), more hospitalizations but shorter stays (Integration), higher antipsychotic medications (Safety), lower use of home care services and higher use of nursing home (Patient-Centered Care) compared to urban persons with dementia.
CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive portrait of rural-urban differences in dementia care highlights possible geographically based inequities and can be used by researchers and decision makers to guide development of more equitable dementia care policies.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women were identified as a high-risk and vulnerable group. To reduce risk of transmission, maternity healthcare services were modified to limit exposure but maintain services for pregnant women. However, the change in hospital practice may have compromised quality maternal care standards. Therefore, this review aims to explore parental experiences and views with maternity care received from healthcare institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: A mixed studies systematic review was conducted. Six electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Maternity and Infant Care) were searched for qualitative, observational, and mixed method studies from the year 2019 to February 2022. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative findings were converted to narrative findings. Data was synthesised thematically using a convergent synthesis design.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight articles were included. Four themes were generated: (1) Distress associated with COVID-19 regulations (perception of hospital restrictions, confusion with ever changing policies), (2) adaptability with maternity services (prenatal: changes in birth plans, prenatal: altered antenatal appointments, education, and care, intrapartum: medicalization of birth, postpartum: varied views on care received and Breastfeeding woes, postpartum: skin-to-skin contact and mother infant bonding) (3) importance of support persons, and (4) future direction for maternity services.
CONCLUSIONS: Parental experiences highlighted how maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic did not adhere to WHO standards of quality maternity care. This calls for healthcare institutions to continuously appraise the implementation of restrictive practices that deviate from evidence-based frameworks underpinning quality care.