The effectiveness of patient navigation to improve healthcare utilization outcomes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of patient navigation (PN) on healthcare utilization outcomes using meta-analysis and the quality of evidence. METHODS: Medical and social science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English between 1989 and May 2015. The review process was guided by PRISMA. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Downs and Black tool. Data were extracted to assess the effect of navigation on: health screening rates, diagnostic resolution, cancer care follow-up treatment adherence, and attendance of care events. Random-effects models were used to compute risk ratios and I2 statistics determined the impact of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 3985 articles screened, 25 articles met inclusion criteria. Compared to usual care, patients who received PN were significantly more likely to access health screening (OR 2.48, 95% CI, 1.93-3.18, P<0.00001) and attend a recommended care event (OR 2.55, 95% CI, 1.27-5.10, P<0.01). PN was favoured to increase adherence to cancer care follow-up treatment and obtain diagnoses. Most studies involved trained lay navigators (n=12) compared to health professionals (n=9). CONCLUSION: PN is effective to increase screening rates and complete care events. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PN is an effective intervention for use in healthcare.

Cardiac rehabilitation referral and enrolment across an academic health sciences centre with eReferral and peer navigation: a randomised controlled pilot trial.

OBJECTIVES: To describe (1) cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral across cardiac units in a tertiary centre with eReferral; (2) characteristics associated with CR referral and enrolment and (3) the effects of peer navigation (PN) on referral and enrolment. This pilot was a 2 parallel-arm, randomised, single-blind trial with allocation concealment. SETTING: 3 cardiac units (ie, interventional, general cardiology, and cardiac surgery) in 1 of 2 hospitals of a tertiary centre. PARTICIPANTS: CR-eligible adult cardiac inpatients were randomised to PN or usual care. 94 (54.7%) patients consented, of which 46 (48.9%) were randomised to PN. Outcomes were ascertained in 76 (80.9%) participants. INTERVENTION: The PN (1) visited participant at the bedside, (2) mailed a card to participant's home reminding about CR and (3) called participant 2 weeks postdischarge to discuss CR barriers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of enrolment was defined as participant attendance at a scheduled CR intake appointment (yes/no). The secondary outcome was referral. Blinded outcome assessment was conducted 12 weeks postdischarge, via CR chart extraction. RESULTS: Those who received care on the cardiac surgery unit (77.9%) were more likely to be referred than those treated on the general cardiology (61.1%) or interventional unit (33.3%; p=0.04). Patients who had cardiac surgery, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia were significantly more likely, and those with congenital heart disease, cancer and a previous cardiac diagnosis were less likely to be referred. Participants referred to a site closer to home (76.2% of those referred) were more likely to enrol than those not (23.7%, p<0.05). PN had no effect on referral (77.6%, p=0.45) or enrolment (46.0%, p=0.24). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in CR referral, even within academic centres, and despite eReferral. Referral was quite high, and thus, PN did not improve CR utilisation. Results support triaging patients to the CR programme closest to their home. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02204449; Results.