The impact of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England: a review of the evidence.
Clinical outcome review programmes
effectiveness
impact
mortality review programmes
service improvement
Journal
Clinical medicine (London, England)
ISSN: 1473-4893
Titre abrégé: Clin Med (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101092853
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2020
07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
7
2020
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England. We undertook a scoping review of the published literature for evidence of the impact of any of the current programmes or their predecessors, and asked programme leads to share examples of the impact of their work. Data were thematically analysed. Evidence about impact related to clinicians' awareness and practice, structural aspects of healthcare, processes of care and patient outcomes. The national clinical outcome review programmes appear to have had significant impact, but none are funded to assess the outcome and impact of the recommendations they make or to deliver a programme of change. There is no structured and systematic way in which the findings and recommendations of each programme are taken forward, nor in which the findings from across programmes are collated and considered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of the national clinical outcome review programmes in England.
METHODS
We undertook a scoping review of the published literature for evidence of the impact of any of the current programmes or their predecessors, and asked programme leads to share examples of the impact of their work. Data were thematically analysed.
FINDINGS
Evidence about impact related to clinicians' awareness and practice, structural aspects of healthcare, processes of care and patient outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The national clinical outcome review programmes appear to have had significant impact, but none are funded to assess the outcome and impact of the recommendations they make or to deliver a programme of change. There is no structured and systematic way in which the findings and recommendations of each programme are taken forward, nor in which the findings from across programmes are collated and considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32675157
pii: 20/4/e52
doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2019-0359
pmc: PMC7385773
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e52-e58Informations de copyright
© Royal College of Physicians 2020. All rights reserved.
Références
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Jun;42(3):248-257
pubmed: 30021683
Am J Surg. 2009 Aug;198(2):270-6
pubmed: 19362289
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Jun;61(2):347-358
pubmed: 29346120
Inj Prev. 2011 Feb;17 Suppl 1:i55-63
pubmed: 21278099
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;130(1):198-202
pubmed: 28594767
Am J Med Qual. 2009 May-Jun;24(3):192-5
pubmed: 19258468
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Jul 17;17(1):233
pubmed: 28716124
BMJ Open Qual. 2018 Nov 26;7(4):e000308
pubmed: 30555931
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Jun;56(3):282-8
pubmed: 26948578
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 May 11;16:176
pubmed: 27169924
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Jan;20(1):38-45
pubmed: 21228074
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:7679196
pubmed: 27446868
EClinicalMedicine. 2018 Aug 05;2-3:13-21
pubmed: 31193723
QJM. 2017 Oct 1;110(10):657-666
pubmed: 28521019
Lancet. 2012 Mar 17;379(9820):1005-12
pubmed: 22305767
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jul;21(7):576-85
pubmed: 22556308
J Surg Res. 2013 Sep;184(1):54-60
pubmed: 23773717