Evidence-Based Medicine: History, Review, Criticisms, and Pitfalls.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the use of high-quality clinical research in making decisions about the care of patients. Its formal origin dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, and since then, it has continued to evolve. The best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values are described as the foundations of EBM. However, several tools and skills have been developed and added over time. EBM has faced a lot of criticism, and the pitfalls are widely discussed and published in the medical literature. The biggest challenge is the changing paradigm of healthcare, cost-effectiveness, and changing evidence which has led to controversies and challenges in the rapid adaptation of the EBM. This review article discusses the history, conception, and evolution of modern-day EBM. In addition, we discuss why EBM has been criticized and highlight the pitfalls.

Patient and Family Engagement During Challenging Times: What Works and What Does Not?

A paradigm shift towards enhanced strategies to effectively engage patients and families in delivering safe and high-quality healthcare services was observed during recent times, particularly in the last decade. Immediately prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, the tri-institutional global healthcare quality reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, World Bank Group, and Lancet Global Health Commission reported the patient and family engagement measures used globally, highlighting the variations across the regions of the world. Through a pandemic for more than a year now, we aim to present the key lessons learned from practices and strategies to proactively engage patients and families. These strategies may continue to be implemented in the post-Covid-19 pandemic era to improve patient and family-centered care.

Patient Engagement and Patient Safety: Are We Missing the Patient in the Center?

The global healthcare delivery paradigm shift calls for enhanced strategies to engage patients in delivering safer and high-quality healthcare. There still exists a gap area in a globally accepted measure for the person-centered care. Recent tri-institutional global quality reports from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAESM), World Bank Group, and Lancet Global Health Commission attempted to report the patient engagement measures used globally. We aim to understand the variation in these globally reported patient-centered care measures and highlight the recent proactive strategies to enhance patient engagement to improve patient safety. I.