A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of clinical pathways on length of stay, hospital costs and patient outcomes

Background. To perform a systematic review about the effect of using clinical pathways on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs and patient outcomes. To provide a framework for local healthcare organisations considering the effectiveness of clinical pathways as a patient management strategy. Methods. As participants, we considered hospitalized children and adults of every age and indication whose treatment involved the management strategy "clinical pathways". We include only randomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT), not restricted by language or country of publication. Single measures of continuous and dichotomous study outcomes were extracted from each study. Separate analyses were done in order to compare effects of clinical pathways on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs and patient outcomes. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with untransformed and log transformed outcomes. Results. In total 17 trials met inclusion criteria, representing 4,070 patients. The quality of the included studies was moderate and studies reporting economic data can be described by a very limited scope of evaluation. In general, the majority of studies reporting economic data (LOS and hospital costs) showed a positive impact. Out of 16 reporting effects on LOS, 12 found significant shortening. Furthermore, in a subgroup-analysis, clinical pathways for invasive procedures showed a stronger LOS reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.5 days versus -0.8 days)). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospitals or in-hospital complications. The overall Odds Ratio (OR) for re-admission was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.57 to 2.08) and for in-hospital complications, the overall OR was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.49 to 1.0). Six studies examined costs, and four showed significantly lower costs for the pathway group. However, heterogeneity between studies reporting on LOS and cost effects was substantial. Conclusion. As a result of the relatively small number of studies meeting inclusion criteria, this evidence base is not conclusive enough to provide a replicable framework for all pathway strategies. Considering the clinical areas for implementation, clinical pathways seem to be effective especially for invasive care. When implementing clinical pathways, the decision makers need to consider the benefits and costs under different circumstances (e.g. market forces)

Towards standardisation of evidence-based clinical care process specifications.

There is a strong push towards standardisation of treatment approaches, care processes and documentation of clinical practice. However, confusion persists regarding terminology and description of many clinical care process specifications which this research seeks to resolve by developing a taxonomic characterisation of clinical care process specifications. Literature on clinical care process specifications was analysed, creating the starting point for identifying common characteristics and how each is constructed and used in the clinical setting. A taxonomy for clinical care process specifications is presented. The De Bleser approach to limited clinical care process specifications characterisation was extended and each clinical care process specification is successfully characterised in terms of purpose, core elements and relationship to the other clinical care process specification types. A case study on the diagnosis and treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the United Kingdom was used to evaluate the taxonomy and demonstrate how the characterisation framework applies. Standardising clinical care process specifications ensures that the format and content are consistent with expectations, can be read more quickly and high-quality information can be recorded about the patient. Standardisation also enables computer interpretability, which is important in integrating Learning Health Systems into the modern clinical environment. The approach presented allows terminologies for clinical care process specifications that were widely used interchangeably to be easily distinguished, thus, eliminating the existing confusion