Articles: hospitals.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2021
Review Meta AnalysisPayment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.
Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. ⋯ For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.
-
Meta Analysis
Characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The purpose herein, was to perform a systematic review of interventional outcome studies in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. ⋯ Compared to the pre-pandemic period, in hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients was numerically higher but had statistically similar outcomes.
-
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab (MEP) in the management of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A systematic search was performed, and articles published until March 2021 were analyzed. The primary efficacy results evaluated were hospitalization rate related to HES, morbidity (new or worsening), relapses/failure, treatment-related adverse effects, prednisone dosage ≤10 mg/day for ≥8 weeks, and eosinophil count <600/μL for ≥8 weeks. ⋯ For the outcomes, prednisone dosage ≤10 mg/day for ≥8 weeks was 48% (RD=0.48; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.62; p<0.00001), and the eosinophil count <600/μL for ≥8 weeks was 51% (RD=0.51; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.63; p<0.00001), both showed a reduction with MEP 300 mg/IV and 750 mg/IV. No statistically significant differences in treatment-related adverse effects outcomes were observed for either dosage (RD=0.09; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.24; p=0.20; RD=0.09; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.29; p=0.39). Despite the positive effects observed for the studied outcomes, the exact significance remains unclear.
-
Hepatolithiasis commonly occurs in the bile duct proximal to the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts, regardless of the coexistence of gallstones in gallbladder or the common bile duct. Clinical research proves that minimally invasive surgery is effective in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. Although previous meta-analysis also shows that it could reduce intraoperative bleeding and blood transfusion, and shorten hospital stay time, there are few meta-analyses on its long-term efficacy. We conducted the meta-analysis and systematic review to systematically evaluate the long-term efficacy and advantages of minimally invasive hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. ⋯ DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/H6WRV.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Nov 2020
Review Meta AnalysisIndividualized versus standard diet fortification for growth and development in preterm infants receiving human milk.
Human milk as compared to formula reduces morbidity in preterm infants but requires fortification to meet their nutritional needs and to reduce the risk of extrauterine growth failure. Standard fortification methods are not individualized to the infant and assume that breast milk is uniform in nutritional content. Strategies for individualizing fortification are available; however it is not known whether these are safe, or if they improve outcomes in preterm infants. ⋯ We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence suggesting that individualized (either targeted or adjustable) fortification of enteral feeds in very low birth weight infants increases growth velocity of weight, length, and head circumference during the intervention compared with standard non-individualized fortification. Evidence showing important in-hospital and post-discharge clinical outcomes was sparse and of very low certainty, precluding inferences regarding safety or clinical benefits beyond short-term growth.