BACKGROUND: Medication errors and associated adverse drug events (ADE) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In recent years, the prevention of medication errors has become a high priority in healthcare systems. In order to improve medication safety, computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are increasingly being integrated into the medication process. Accordingly, a growing number of studies have investigated the medication safety-related effectiveness of CDSS. However, the outcome measures used are heterogeneous, leading to unclear evidence. The primary aim of this study is to summarize and categorize the outcomes used in interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS on medication safety in primary and long-term care.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for interventional studies evaluating the effects of CDSS targeting medication safety and patient-related outcomes. We extracted methodological characteristics, outcomes and empirical findings from the included studies. Outcomes were assigned to three main categories: process-related, harm-related, and cost-related. Risk of bias was assessed using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Almost all studies (n = 31) used process-related outcomes, followed by harm-related outcomes (n = 11). Only three studies used cost-related outcomes. Most studies used outcomes from only one category and no study used outcomes from all three categories. The definition and operationalization of outcomes varied widely between the included studies, even within outcome categories. Overall, evidence on CDSS effectiveness was mixed. A significant intervention effect was demonstrated by nine of fifteen studies with process-related primary outcomes (60%) but only one out of five studies with harm-related primary outcomes (20%). The included studies faced a number of methodological problems that limit the comparability and generalizability of their results.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the effectiveness of CDSS is currently inconclusive due in part to inconsistent outcome definitions and methodological problems in the literature. Additional high-quality studies are therefore needed to provide a comprehensive account of CDSS effectiveness. These studies should follow established methodological guidelines and recommendations and use a comprehensive set of harm-, process- and cost-related outcomes with agreed-upon and consistent definitions.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023464746.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize the effect of medical therapy on headache and facial pain/pressure among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).
METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus.
METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus were searched from inception through April 10th, 2024, for English language articles reporting headache or facial pain/pressure outcomes in CRS patients. Inclusion was restricted to studies reporting results of the medical treatment of CRS in nonsurgical cohorts. Primary outcome measures included the sino-nasal outcome test (SNOT) and the visual analogue scale (VAS). Meta-analyses of continuous measures (mean), mean difference (Δ), and proportions (%) were conducted.
RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2429 unique articles. After a full-text review of 272 articles, 17 studies reporting outcomes for 2269 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean patient age was 48.6 years (range 18.0-86.0; 95% CI: 46.5 to 50.6), among which 55.4% (95% CI: 51.5 to 59.4) were male and 82.9% (95% CI: 68.8 to 93.4) had nasal polyposis. SNOT facial pain/pressure scores improved by 1.1 points (95% CI: -1.7 to -0.5; relative reduction 40.4%) with non-biologic therapies and 1.0 point (95% CI: -1.4 to -0.6; relative reduction 54.6%) with biologic therapies. On an 11-point scale, VAS headaches scores improved by 1.8 units (95% CI: -3.3 to -0.3; 42.1% relative reduction) in CRSwNP patients and 1.0 unit (95% CI: -1.7 to -0.3; 54.0% relative reduction) in CRSsNP patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest medical therapy significantly reduces facial pain and pressure in the CRS population. Laryngoscope, 2024.

BACKGROUND: Linked datasets for trauma system monitoring should ideally follow patients from the prehospital scene to hospital admission and post-discharge. Having a well-defined cohort when using administrative datasets is essential because they must capture the representative population. Unlike hospital electronic health records (EHR), ambulance patient-care records lack access to sources beyond immediate clinical notes. Relying on a limited set of variables to define a study population might result in missed patient inclusion. We aimed to compare two methods of identifying prehospital trauma patients: one using only those documented under a trauma protocol and another incorporating additional data elements from ambulance patient care records.
METHODS: We analyzed data from six routinely collected administrative datasets from 2015 to 2018, including ambulance patient-care records, aeromedical data, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, rehabilitation outcomes, and death records. Three prehospital trauma cohorts were created: an Extended-T-protocol cohort (patients transported under a trauma protocol and/or patients with prespecified criteria from structured data fields), T-protocol cohort (only patients documented as transported under a trauma protocol) and non-T-protocol (extended-T-protocol population not in the T-protocol cohort). Patient-encounter characteristics, mortality, clinical and post-hospital discharge outcomes were compared. A conservative p-value of 0.01 was considered significant RESULTS: Of 1 038 263 patient-encounters included in the extended-T-population 814 729 (78.5 %) were transported, with 438 893 (53.9 %) documented as a T-protocol patient. Half (49.6 %) of the non-T-protocol sub-cohort had an International Classification of Disease 10th edition injury or external cause code, indicating 79644 missed patients when a T-protocol-only definition was used. The non-T-protocol sub-cohort also identified additional patients with intubation, prehospital blood transfusion and positive eFAST. A higher proportion of non-T protocol patients than T-protocol patients were admitted to the ICU (4.6% vs 3.6 %), ventilated (1.8% vs 1.3 %), received in-hospital transfusion (7.9 vs 6.8 %) or died (1.8% vs 1.3 %). Urgent trauma surgery was similar between groups (1.3% vs 1.4 %).
CONCLUSIONS: The extended-T-population definition identified 50 % more admitted patients with an ICD-10-AM code consistent with an injury, including patients with severe trauma. Developing an EHR phenotype incorporating multiple data fields of ambulance-transported trauma patients for use with linked data may avoid missing these patients.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to major shifts in the management of colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aims to identify the impact and early outcomes of COVID-19 following CRC management at a tertiary referral center in Victoria, Australia.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study, utilizing the Australian Comprehensive Cancer Outcomes and Research Database and inpatient records. Patients presenting for CRC management at our institution were identified coinciding with the first Victorian outbreak of COVID-19 (March 26 to September 26, 2020) (COVID). Management decisions including chemoradiotherapy utilization and surgical outcomes were analyzed within 6 months and compared with the corresponding period in 2019 (pre-COVID).
RESULTS: A total of 276 patients were included in this study (147 pre-COVID period, 129 COVID period). During the COVID period, more patients (47.6% vs. 60.5%; p = 0.033) presented symptomatically and less for surveillance (10.9% vs. 2.3%; p < 0.01). Eighty-four pre-COVID and 69 COVID period patients proceeded to surgery. The average time from diagnosis date to surgery was 15.6 days less during the COVID period. There were no significant differences in postoperative utilization of higher care (p = 0.74), complications (p = 0.93), median hospital length of stay (p = 0.67), 30-day readmission (p = 0.50), or 30-day reoperation (p = 0.74). In 1.6% of cases, pandemic impacts resulted in a change in management.
CONCLUSIONS: Presentation of patients with CRC varied, with a significant increase in symptomatic presentations and decreased numbers for surveillance. Through flexibility and change in practice, our institution helped improve access to surgical intervention and oncological therapies. Further prospective work is required to identify long-term outcomes and characterize the effects of ongoing disruptions.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and agree on what outcome domains should be measured in research and clinical practice when working with stroke survivors who have dysarthria.
METHODS: Delphi process, two rounds of an online survey followed by two online consensus meetings.
METHODS: UK and Australia.
METHODS: Stroke survivors with experience of dysarthria, speech and language therapists/pathologists working in stroke and communication researchers.
METHODS: Initial list of outcome domains generated from existing literature and with our patient and public involvement group to develop the survey. Participants completed two rounds of this survey to rate importance. Outcomes were identified as \'in\', \'unclear\' or \'out\' from the second survey. All participants were invited to two consensus meetings to discuss these results followed by voting to identify critically important outcome domains for a future Core Outcome Set. All outcomes were voted on in the consensus meetings and included if 70% of meeting participants voted \'yes\' for critically important.
RESULTS: In total, 148 surveys were fully completed, and 28 participants attended the consensus meetings. A core outcome set for dysarthria after stroke should include four outcome domains: (a) intelligibility of speech, (b) ability to participate in conversations, (c) living well with dysarthria, (d) skills and knowledge of communication partners (where relevant).
CONCLUSIONS: We describe the consensus of \'what\' speech outcomes after stroke are valued by all stakeholders including those with lived experience. We share these findings to encourage the measurement of these domains in clinical practice and research and for future research to identify \'how\' best to measure these outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There has been significant debate about the advantages and disadvantages of using administrative databases or clinical registry in healthcare improvement programs. The aim of this study was to review the implementation and outcomes of an accountability policy through a registry maintained by professionals of the surgical department.
METHODS: All patients admitted to the department between 2003 and 2022 were prospectively included. All adverse events (AEs) occurring during the admission, convalescent care in facilities, or at home for a minimum period of 30 days after discharge were recorded.
RESULTS: Out of 60,125 records, 24,846 AEs were documented in 16,802 cases (27.9%). There was a progressive increase in the number of AEs recorded per admission (1.17 in 2003 vs. 1.93 in 2022) with a 26% decrease in entries with AEs (from 35.0% in 2003 to 25.8% in 2022), a 57.5% decrease in reoperations (from 8.0% to 3.4%, respectively), and an 80% decrease in mortality (from 1.8% to 1.0%, respectively). It is noteworthy that a significant reduction in severe AEs was observed between 2011 and 2022 (56% vs. 15.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: A prospective registry of AEs created and maintained by health professionals, along with transparent presentation and discussion of the results, leads to sustained improvement in outcomes in a surgical department of a university hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Inpatient rehabilitation represents a critical setting for stroke treatment, providing intensive, targeted therapy and task-specific practice to minimize a patient\'s functional deficits and facilitate their reintegration into the community. However, impairment and recovery vary greatly after stroke, making it difficult to predict a patient\'s future outcomes or response to treatment. In this study, the authors examined the value of early-stage wearable sensor data to predict 3 functional outcomes (ambulation, independence, and risk of falling) at rehabilitation discharge.
METHODS: Fifty-five individuals undergoing inpatient stroke rehabilitation participated in this study. Supervised machine learning classifiers were retrospectively trained to predict discharge outcomes using data collected at hospital admission, including patient information, functional assessment scores, and inertial sensor data from the lower limbs during gait and/or balance tasks. Model performance was compared across different data combinations and was benchmarked against a traditional model trained without sensor data.
RESULTS: For patients who were ambulatory at admission, sensor data improved the predictions of ambulation and risk of falling (with weighted F1 scores increasing by 19.6% and 23.4%, respectively) and maintained similar performance for predictions of independence, compared to a benchmark model without sensor data. The best-performing sensor-based models predicted discharge ambulation (community vs household), independence (high vs low), and risk of falling (normal vs high) with accuracies of 84.4%, 68.8%, and 65.9%, respectively. Most misclassifications occurred with admission or discharge scores near the classification boundary. For patients who were nonambulatory at admission, sensor data recorded during simple balance tasks did not offer predictive value over the benchmark models.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the continued investigation of wearable sensors as an accessible, easy-to-use tool to predict the functional recovery after stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: Accurate, early prediction of poststroke rehabilitation outcomes from wearable sensors would improve our ability to deliver personalized, effective care and discharge planning in the inpatient setting and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this scoping review are to examine the available literature regarding dual tasking in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and to identify and categorize both the motor and cognitive tasks and outcome measures used primarily through the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health model.
METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched. Studies were included if they: (1) were published in English; (2) included at least 1 group of children or adolescents with a diagnosis of CP; (3) assessed dual tasking as part of the study; (4) reported the method for performing the dual task; and (5) reported the outcome measures utilized.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies with 439 children with CP were included. All studies utilized motor activities as the primary task, including walking, balance, and a functional transition. Motor secondary tasks occurred in 10 studies, cognitive secondary tasks in 12 studies, and 1 study used both. Forty-one outcome measures over 23 studies assessed the body structure and function domain, 7 measures over 6 studies assessed activity limitations, and 2 outcomes over 2 studies assessed participation.
CONCLUSIONS: The 23 included studies demonstrated heterogeneity in the age and function of participants, secondary tasks, and outcome measures. Future studies on dual tasking in children with CP should consider the difficulty of the primary motor or cognitive task and compare secondary tasks to establish this contribution to motor performance. Studies should incorporate activity and participation measures to assess meaningful functional outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Children with CP experience challenges when exposed to dual task situations. This scoping review highlights the importance of considering multiple factors when designing dual tasking studies involving children with CP to facilitate results translation, improved participation, and enhanced function. Similarly, studies should utilize activity and participation outcomes to assess quality of life.

Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important.
To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies.
A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022).
Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients\' and informal caregivers\' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion.
We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use.
Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders\' priorities.

Efforts to progress oral healthcare reform can be challenging with competing interests of governments and service providers to achieve the intended outcomes. The value-based health care approach has been adopted in many areas of healthcare but has had limited applications to oral healthcare systems. Dental Health Services Victoria, an Australian state government funded entity, commenced its journey to value-based health care in 2016, to shift away from traditional dental service models that reward activity and volume towards a stronger emphasis on value and outcomes.
To maintain the value-based health care agenda focus, Dental Health Services Victoria developed three key principles, which can be adopted by other organisations engaged in reforming oral healthcare, to improve the oral health for the population it serves.
In 2018, Dental Health Services Victoria developed a value-based health care framework, which has informed strategic organisation priorities for action. In 2023, the following three key principles are identified as being essential to support the operationalisation and development of effective models of oral healthcare: Principle 1 - Care is co-designed with the person or population Principle 2 - Prevention and early intervention are prioritised. Principle 3 - Consistent measurement of health outcomes and costs are embedded.
The exploration of the three key principles is an important communication tool to translate value-based health care into practice with key stakeholders. Further work is required to socialise them to within dental teams.
Organisations looking to commence the value-based health care agenda can apply Dental Health Services Victoria\'s three key principles as a first step.