OBJECTIVE: To identify and quantify risk factors for in-hospital falls in medical patients.
METHODS: Six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) were systematically screened until April 11, 2023, to identify relevant articles.
METHODS: All titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were independently screened by 2 researchers who also read the full texts of the remaining articles. Quantitative studies that assessed risk factors for falls among adult patients acutely hospitalized were included in the review. Publications that did not capture internal medicine patients or focused on other specific populations were excluded.
METHODS: Information on study characteristics and potential risk factors were systematically extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed for reporting.
RESULTS: The main outcome was any in-hospital falls. Using a random-effects meta-analysis model, association measures for each risk factor reported in 5 or more studies were pooled. Separate analyses according to effect measure and studies adjusted for sex and age at least were performed. Of 5067 records retrieved, 119 original publications from 25 countries were included. In conclusion, 23 potential risk factors were meta-analyzed. Strong evidence with large effect sizes was found for a history of falls (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-3.96; I2, 91%), antidepressants (pooled OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.92-2.65; I2, 0%), benzodiazepines (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.68-2.31; I2, 0%), hypnotics-sedatives (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.53-2.36; I2, 46%), and antipsychotics (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95; I2, 0%). Furthermore, evidence of associations with male sex (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 0.99-1.50; I2, 65%) and age (OR, 1.17, 95% CI, 1.02-1.35; I2, 72%) were found, but effect sizes were small.
CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive list of risk factors, which specifies the strength of evidence and effect sizes, could assist in the prioritization of preventive measures and interventions.

Most of the evidence regarding the success of ACOs is from the Medicare program. This review evaluates the impacts of ACOs within the Medicaid population. We identified 32 relevant studies published between 2012 and 2023 which analyzed the association of Medicaid ACOs and health care utilization (n = 21), quality measures (n = 18), health outcomes (n = 10), and cost reduction (n = 3). The results of our review regarding the effectiveness of Medicaid ACOs are mixed. Significant improvements included increased primary care visits, reduced admissions, and reduced inpatient stays. Cost reductions were reported in a few studies, and savings were largely dependent on length of attribution and years elapsed after ACO implementation. Adopting the ACO model for the Medicaid population brings some different challenges from those with the Medicare population, which may limit its success, particularly given differences in state Medicaid programs.

Advancing health equity requires more contextualised evidence.
To synthesise published evidence using an existing framework on the origins of health disparities and determine care-related outcome disparities for residents of long-term care, comparing minoritised populations to the context-specific dominant population.
Systematic review.
Residents of 24-hour long-term care homes.
The protocol was registered a priori with PROSPERO (CRD42021269489). Literature published between 1 January 2000 and 26 September 2021, was searched, including studies comparing baseline characteristics and outcomes in minoritised versus dominant populations. Dual screening, two-reviewer verification for extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to ensure rigour. Studies were synthesized using a conceptual framework to contextualise evidence according to multi-level factors contributing to the development of care disparities.
Twenty-one of 34 included studies demonstrated disparities in care outcomes for minoritised groups compared to majority groups. Thirty-one studies observed differences in individual-level characteristics (e.g. age, education, underlying conditions) upon entry to homes, with several outcome disparities (e.g. restraint use, number of medications) present at baseline and remaining or worsening over time. Significant gaps in evidence were identified, particularly an absence of literature on provider information and evidence on the experience of intersecting minority identities that contribute to care-related outcome disparities in long-term care.
This review found differences in minoritised populations\' care-related outcomes. The findings provide guidance for future health equity policy and research-supporting diverse and intersectional capacity building in long-term care.

In January 2020, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in the United Kingdom, issued a permissive framework for streamlining cancer multidisciplinary (MDT) meetings. Streamlining is defined as a process whereby complex cases are prioritized for full discussion by an MDT in an MDT meeting (MDM), while the management of straightforward cases is expedited using Standards of Care (SoC). SoC are points in the pathway of patient management where there are recognized guidelines and clear clinical consensus on the options for management and should be regionally agreed and uniformly applied by regional Cancer Alliances. While this report marks the first major change in cancer MDT management since the Calman-Hine report in 1995, its implementation, nationally, has been slow with now nearly four years since its publication. It is argued however that streamlining is a necessary step in ensuring the viability of MDT processes, and therefore maintaining patient care in the current socioeconomic context of rising workload and cancer incidence, financial pressures, and workforce shortages. In this mini review, we offer a succinct summary of the recent developments around the implementation of the 2020 streamlining framework, including challenges and barriers to its implementation, and the potential future directions in this field, which we propose should increase utilisation of implementation science. We conclude that ensuring successful implementation of the framework and the SOC requires securing a buy-in from key stakeholders, including MDTs and hospital management teams, with clearly defined (a) management approaches that include triage (e.g. through a mini MDT meeting), (b) assessment of case complexity (something that directly feeds into the SOC), and (c) roles of the MDT lead and the members, while acknowledging that the SOC cannot be universally applied without the consideration of individual variations across teams and hospital Trusts.

With the increased focus on patient-centered care, consensus on healthcare outcomes of importance to patients becomes crucial. Based on a systematic review of the literature, this study confirms the perspectives of patients on healthcare quality in GCC countries. Online databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles published from 2012 to 2023. Twenty-two articles retrieved from the search were qualitatively analyzed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Most articles (90%) reported studies conducted in Saudi Arabia. Patients in GCC countries face common problems in the care delivery process, which contribute to negative perceptions of quality. These problems include diagnostic and medication errors, provider-patient communication problems, missed appointments with physicians, problems in emergency care access due to geographical distance and transportation barriers, long waiting times, and physical environments. Notably, healthcare quality is perceived to be an outcome of multiple factors dependent on the location and category of healthcare service providers; for instance, disparities in perceptions of quality were observed between patients attending Primary Health Care (PHC) centers in rural and urban areas. Issues such as lack of equitable healthcare delivery and deficiencies in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) effectiveness were disparately recognized as quality concerns by different patient populations. The findings provide insights into healthcare quality and area of weakness needing strategies and policies to ensure patient-centered, safe, equitable, timely, and effective healthcare. Healthcare providers and policymakers in GCC countries can use the results to plan, assess, and improve care delivery. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42022326842.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are standardized, evidence-based measures of health care quality. Currently, there is no basic set of quality indicators for chiropractic care published in peer-reviewed literature. The goal of this research is to develop a preliminary set of quality indicators, measurable with administrative data.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review searching PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature databases. Eligible articles were published after 2011, in English, developing/reporting best practices and clinical guidelines specifically developed for, or directly applicable to, chiropractic care. Eligible non-peer-reviewed sources such as quality measures published by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Royal College of Chiropractors quality standards were also included. Following a stepwise eligibility determination process, data abstraction identified specific statements from included sources that can conceivably be measured with administrative data. Once identified, statements were transformed into potential indicators by: 1) Generating a brief title and description; 2) Documenting a source; 3) Developing a metric; and 4) Assigning a Donabedian category (structure, process, outcome). Draft indicators then traversed a 5-step assessment: 1) Describes a narrowly defined structure, process, or outcome; 2) Quantitative data can conceivably be available; 3) Performance is achievable; 4) Metric is relevant; 5) Data are obtainable within reasonable time limits. Indicators meeting all criteria were included in the final set.
RESULTS: Literature searching revealed 2562 articles. After removing duplicates and conducting eligibility determination, 18 remained. Most were clinical guidelines (n = 10) and best practice recommendations (n = 6), with 1 consensus and 1 clinical standards development study. Data abstraction and transformation produced 204 draft quality indicators. Of those, 57 did not meet 1 or more assessment criteria. After removing duplicates, 70 distinct indicators remained. Most indicators matched the Donabedian category of process (n = 35), with 31 structure and 4 outcome indicators. No sources were identified to support indicator development from patient perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS: This article proposes a preliminary set of 70 quality indicators for chiropractic care, theoretically measurable with administrative data and largely obtained from electronic health records. Future research should assess feasibility, achieve stakeholder consensus, develop additional indicators including those considering patient perspectives, and study relationships with clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/t7kgm.

UNASSIGNED: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the non-communicable diseases which continues to rise in prevalence and mortality rate throughout the years. Drug-related problems (DRPs) are more prevalent among T2DM patients especially those with co-morbidities.
UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study was to review and assess the prevalence and characteristics of DRPs among hospitalized type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.
UNASSIGNED: The systematic review of the literature was carried out using five online databases: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database until June 2022. Studies included in the review were published in English or Malay language. The data were extracted and assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 939 studies were identified with 20 studies that met inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. The overall prevalence of DRPs in all 20 studies ranged from 7% to 94%. The most common DRPs included drug-drug interaction (DDI), adverse drug reaction (ADR), therapeutic effectiveness problems, and inappropriate medication use.
UNASSIGNED: The most common drug classes involved were antidiabetics (metformin), antihypertensives, antiplatelets and antibiotics. The risk factors contributing to DRPs included the presence of comorbidities, the number of medications, and polypharmacy. To conclude, the rate of DRPs incidence in hospitalized T2DM patients was observed to be high. Further future studies with appropriate study designs and methods of detecting DRPs will be necessary to reduce and prevent DRPs occurrences.

High-risk patients-those patients with complex health care needs who are most likely to face hospitalization or death in the following two years-are most often initially seen in the primary care setting. This small group of patients uses a disproportionate amount of care resources. Contributing to the challenges of care planning for this population is that individuals are highly heterogeneous; no two patients present the same set of symptoms, diagnoses, and challenges related to social determinants of health (SDOH). Methods for early identification of these high-risk patients-and their care needs-have raised the possibility of timely enhanced care. In this study, the authors conduct a scoping review to identify existing measures of care quality; assessment and screening guidelines; and tools that (1) assess social support, the need for caregiver support, and the need for referral to social services and (2) screen for cognitive impairment (CI). Evidence-based screening guidelines define who and what should be assessed-and how often-to enhance care quality and improve health outcomes, whereas measures permit ascertainment that this assessment is occurring. Evidence-based guidelines and measures-those that are found to lead to better health care outcomes-would be candidates for inclusion in a measure dashboard for high-risk patients in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to document tools designed to identify persons requiring special care dentistry (SCD) and to provide a better understanding of the factors that justify adaptation in the provision of care.
METHODS: A scoping review methodology was applied. An electronic search was performed in April 2021 using Pubmed and Embase. Additional tools were sought using hand searches and informal professional networking.
RESULTS: Ten tools were identified that either predict the complexity of dental management or that retrospectively judge the complexity of care, of which two are as yet unpublished. Some had been developed for a specific population (e.g., patients with Alzheimer\'s disease, with learning disability, elderly persons) whilst others were applicable for any population (case mix tools). Factors considered included the patient\'s medical history, ability to cooperate, physical and cognitive autonomy, communication skills, anxiety, need for sedation, oral risk factors, ability to consent and the administrative burden for the dentist.
CONCLUSIONS: Identifying persons requiring SCD is possible by looking at various factors that influence the provision of dental care. There may be need for adaptation of tools to local circumstances and to the intended usage of the tool at a health services, systems or policy level.

Surgical outcomes and patient morbidity are often surrogate markers of health care quality and efficiency. These parameters can only be used with confidence if the reporting and grading of intra- and postoperative complications are reliable and reproducible. Without uniformity and regulation, the risk of under-reporting, and thus significant underestimation of the burden of intra- and postoperative morbidity, is high and should be of great concern to the international surgical community.
To assess the quality and utility of currently available reporting and classification systems for intra- and postoperative complications, recognise their advantages and pitfalls, discuss the overall implications of these systems for urological surgery, and identify potential solutions for future reporting and classification systems.
A comprehensive search was performed using multiple reputable databases and trial registries up to October 25, 2022. Only studies that adhered to predefined inclusion criteria were included. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two review authors. The review was performed according to strict methodological guidelines in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement.
A total of 13 papers highlighting 13 various complication systems were critically assessed in this review. All studies proposed an intra- or postoperative complication reporting or grading system that was surgically related. At present, there is no single instrument in clinical practice to account for all relevant complication data. Six of the 13 studies were clinically validated (46%) and only three studies were urology-focused (23%). Meta-analysis was not possible.
Current individual complication tools are flawed, so there is a need for a novel, all-inclusive, specialty-specific reporting and classification system for intra- and postoperative complications. If successfully validated and integrated worldwide, such an instrument would have the potential to play a significant role in reshaping efficiency in health care systems and improving surgical and patient quality of care.
Current tools for reporting and classifying complications during and after surgery underestimate how burdensome such complications can be for patients. We summarise the reporting and classification tools currently available, discuss their advantages and drawbacks, and propose potential solutions for future systems. Our review can help in better understanding the changes required for future tools and how to improve overall surgical outcomes for patients.