Large- and small-scale transformation of healthcare delivery toward improved patient experience through promotion of patient-centered and coordinated care continues to be at the forefront of health system efforts in the United States. As part of a Quality Improvement (QI) project at a large, midwestern health system, a case series of high-performing organizations was explored with the goal of identifying best practices in patient-centered care and/or care coordination (PCC/CC). Identification of best practices was done through rapid realist review of peer-reviewed literature supporting three PCC/CC interventions per case. Mechanisms responsible for successful intervention outcomes and associated institutional-level facilitators were evaluated, and cross-case analysis produced high-level focus items for health system leadership, including (1) institutional values surrounding PCC/CC, (2) optimization of IT infrastructure to enhance performance and communication, (3) pay structures and employment models that enhance accountability, and (4) organizing bodies to support implementation efforts. Health systems may use this review to gain insight into how institutional-level factors may facilitate small-scale PCC/CC behaviors, or to conduct similar assessments in their own QI projects. Based on our analysis, we recommend health systems seeking to improve PCC/CC at any level or scale to evaluate how IT infrastructure affects provider-provider and provider-patient communication, and the extent to which institutional prioritization of PCC/CC is manifest and held accountable in performance feedback, incentivization, and values shared among departments and settings. Ideally, this evaluation work should be performed and/or supported by cross-department organizing bodies specifically devoted to PCC/CC implementation work.

This realist review aims, with evidence from recent studies, to understand both how nurse-led case management interventions are implemented in the management of chronic illnesses, and in what circumstances these interventions are successful. The review followed the realist review methodology. From four electronic databases, twenty empirical and primary nurse-led case management intervention studies published between January 2011 and February 2020 were included. For each study, causality was explored, and findings were integrated. Three contexts, five mechanisms, and three major outcomes were found, and several context-mechanism-outcome strings were identified. Further analysis and synthesis of the studies showed that when duration of intervention, service delivery mode, and types of services are appropriate, as well as number of services with patients considering care is provided, case managment interventions change outcomes for patients with chronic illnesses. Finally, an explanatory conceptual framework based on the review results was developed to guide nurse managers and researchers.

OBJECTIVE: Translation of evidence to practice is a public health priority. Worldwide, injury is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Case study publications are common and provide potentially reproducible examples of successful interventions in healthcare from the patient to systems level. However, data on how well case study publications are utilized are limited. To our knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the only collection of international case studies on injury care at the policy level. We aimed to determine the degree to which these injury care case studies have been translated to practice and to identify opportunities for enhancement of the evidence-to-practice pathway for injury care case studies overall.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review across 19 databases by searching for the title, \"Strengthening care for the injured: Success stories and lessons learned from around the world.\" Data synthesis included realist narrative methods and two authors independently reviewed articles for injury topics, reference details, and extent of utilization.
RESULTS: Forty-seven publications referenced the compilation of case studies, 20 of which included further descriptions of one or more of the specific cases and underwent narrative review. The most common category utilized was hospital-based care (15 publications), with the example of Thailand\'s quality improvement (QI) programme (10 publications) being the most commonly cited case. Also frequently cited were case studies on prehospital care (10 publications). There was infrequent utilization of case studies on rehabilitation (3 publications) and trauma systems (2 publications). No reference described a case translated to a new scenario.
CONCLUSIONS: The only available collection of policy-level injury care case studies has been utilized to a moderate extent however we found no evidence of case study translation to a new circumstance. QI programs seem especially amenable for knowledge-sharing through case studies. Prehospital care also showed promise. Greater emphasis on rehabilitation and health policy related to trauma systems is warranted. There is also a need for greater methodologic rigor in evaluation of the use of case study collections in general.