The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) are management technologies which formalise multi-disciplinary team-working and enable professionals to examine and address how they articulate their respective roles, responsibilities and activities. They map out a patient's journey and aim to have: 'the right people, doing the right things, in the right order, at the right time, in the right place, with the right outcome'. Initially introduced into the health care context in the 1980s in the US, enthusiasm for ICPs now extends across the world. They have been promoted as a means to realise: evidence based practice, clinical governance, continuity of care, patient empowerment, efficiency gains, service re-engineering, role realignment and staff education.While ICPs are now being developed and implemented across international health care arena, evidence to support their use is equivocal and understanding of their 'active ingredients' is poor. Reviews of evidence of ICP effectiveness have focused on their use in specific patient populations. However, ICPs are 'complex interventions' and are increasingly being implemented for a variety of purposes in a range of organisational contexts. Identification of the circumstances in which ICPs are effective is the first step towards developing hypotheses about their active ingredients and the generative mechanisms by which they have their effects.This review was designed to address a slightly different set of questions to those that typify systematic reviews of ICP effectiveness. Rather than simply asking: 'Are ICPs effective?', our concern was to identify the circumstances in which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts. In addition to identifying evidence of ICP effectiveness, the review therefore required attention to the contexts in which ICPs are utilised, the purposes to which they are put and the factors critical to their success. In framing the review in this way we are drawing on the insights afforded by Pawson and Tilley's realistic evaluation methodology. The underlying rationale for this approach is that if we know and understand how different interventions produce varying effects in different circumstances, we are better able to decide what policies/services to implement in what conditions. OBJECTIVES: To identify the purposes for which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts;To identify the purposes for which ICPs are not effective, for whom and in what contexts;To produce recommendations on how ICPs should be used in the full range of health care settings. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Types of participants - The review focused on adults and children that accessed health care settings in which ICPs are used.Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest - For the purposes of the review, the ICP had to meet the defining characteristics set by the European Pathway Association (EPA):An explicit statement of the goals and key elements of care based on evidence, best practice and patient expectations;Facilitation of communication, coordination of roles, and sequencing of activities of the multidisciplinary care team, patients and their relatives;The documentation, monitoring, and evaluation of variances and outcomes;The identification of the appropriate resources.Here multidisciplinary is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines.Types of outcomes - Outcome measures were determined by the purposes of the studies selected for review and the type of study participant. Specific clinical outcomes were determined by the group of patients for which the ICP was developed.Types of studies - To address the aims of the review it was necessary to examine evidence of ICP effectiveness across the full spectrum of contexts in which they are in use. In order to keep the study to a manageable scale we limited its scope to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs reported between 1980 and 2008 (March) were included in the review. The search was restricted to publications after 1980 coinciding with the emergence of ICPs in the health care context. Non-English language studies were considered for inclusion based on the English language abstract where this was available. Papers were included if an English, German or French translation was available. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: The review excluded studies that: SEARCH STRATEGY: The strategy consisted of high precision MeSH and non-MeSH index terms and keywords to ensure that all relevant material was captured (). To avoid any potential replication, initial searches of the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery and Cochrane Library databases were conducted to establish that no other systematic reviews existed or were currently in progress. Following these initial enquiries a three step search strategy was designed to identify both published and unpublished studies. Stage one involved searching online databases using preliminary keywords, stage two involved using additional search words identified in the title or abstracts found in stage one and stage three involved hand searches of reference lists, bibliographies and key journals including the Journal of Integrated Care Pathways and International Journal of Integrated Care. DATA COLLECTION: Our search strategy located 4055 papers, of which 31 were retrieved for further evaluation. We critically appraised 9 papers, representing 7 studies. These studies were appraised for methodological quality using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Experimental Studies (See ). This appraisal focused specifically upon the reliability and validity of the study method and findings. Two reviewers independently assessed all of the included studies. In cases where reviewers could not reach an agreement a third reviewer was consulted. If disagreement was due to a lack of information then the study authors were contacted for clarification. Following the process of critical appraisal, 9 papers which represents 7 studies, were considered to be of a high enough quality to proceed to data extraction. DATA EXTRACTION: As the aim of the review was to capture information on context as well as effectiveness, a bespoke data extraction tool was developed. The tool drew on the information included in the JBI extraction sheet for experimental studies and also incorporated specific information and issues relevant to the purpose of the review including aspects of ICP purpose, information on context and critical success factors (). DATA SYNTHESIS: Given the heterogeneity of the included studies meta-analysis and/or qualitative synthesis was not possible. A narrative summary of the study findings is therefore presented. RESULTS: Based on the evidence considered in this review, we conclude that:Based on the evidence considered in this review we conclude that:Active Ingredients - We have argued that ICPs are a classic example of a complex intervention. That is they comprise 'a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the intervention although the "active ingredient" of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify'. None of the studies included in the review were underpinned by explicit theories of ICPs' active ingredients or their generative effects. Moreover, the information provided on ICP development and implementation processes was varied and in no case was any evidence provided to enable the role of these components of the intervention to be assessed. The interventions described by the studies in the review varied in terms of their key components ().Generative Mechanisms - Although none of the studies explicitly address the question of generative mechanisms, in several cases it was possible to make inferences about authors' implicit assumptions, based on the discussion sections of the papers (). On the basis of the evidence considered in the review we suggest that ICPs can be considered as having a multiple role as directing, coordinating, organising, decision-making, and accumulating devices. In addition, because ICPs accumulate information, it seems reasonable to infer that they also function as 'distributing devices' by circulating information to users of the pathway, although no definitive evidence is provided in the studies reviewed to support this assertion. CONCLUSIONS: Our review indicates that ICPs can have positive effects on service quality and efficiency as a result of their functions. They are effective in supporting the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of resources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay. They also have value in supporting implementation of best practice guidelines and protocols by translating these into a format which is suitable for daily use by busy health professionals, thereby improving inter and intra-professional consensus and reducing unacceptable variations in clinical practice. Because they function as accumulating and distributing devices ICPs may also bring about improvements in documentation, which in turn augments their coordinating effects. They provide a focal point of reference - a common resource - to which various members can refer in order to understand where their role fits into the larger whole and determine what actions are necessary and when. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Recommendation 1: Given the costs of their development, service providers should restrict ICP use to those areas of service provision where there are clearly identified deficiencies in existing care provision and/or where change is required.Recommendation 2: Prior to ICP development, developers should seek to specify how they wish to change practice, and which of the potential active ingredients of ICPs are necessary for this purpose.Recommendation 3: The evidence suggests that the ICP will change practice. It is imperative therefore, that the directions for action embedded in the tool are basedon best practice or evidence.Recommendation 4: ICPs can be usefully deployed to make best practice guidelines available to staff in a form that is useable in daily practice.Recommendation 5: In cases where trajectories of care are more variable ICPs need to have greater degrees of in-built flexibility. Moreover, it is important that staff are supported in exercising professional judgement in those cases when adherence to the pathway is not in the individual patient's interest.Recommendation 6: ICP developers should consider carefully the patient population to whom the ICP applies and identify any sub-groups for whom its use may not be appropriate. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Recommendation 1: Primary research is necessary in order to provide stronger evidence of the active ingredients of ICPs, their generative mechanisms and inter-relationships.Recommendation 2: Evaluations of ICPs should specify the ingredients of the intervention, including processes to support development, implementation and sustainability as well as the detail of the ICP artefact itself.Recommendation 3: Evaluations of ICPs need to be underpinned by clarity as to the purposes of the intervention.Recommendation 4: Evaluations of ICPs must include theoretically informed outcome and process measures which take into account the perspective of all relevant stakeholders and the wider system effects of the intervention.Recommendation 5: Evaluations of ICPs should include theoretically informed process outcomes in order to develop understanding of ICP use in practice so that the reasons for behavioural change or its absence are understood.Recommendation 6: Evaluations of ICPs should provide adequate information on the 'control'.Recommendation 7: Evaluations of ICPs should provide adequate information on the local context, taking care to identify critical success factors.Recommendation 8: It is unlikely that ICPs will work for all purposes and in all contexts. Researchers should aim to produce realistic evaluations of ICPs which seek to develop an explanation (and therefore a theory) about how the intervention in question works in particular situations/contexts, by exploring the relationship between context, mechanism and outcome.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of integrated care pathways: what works, for whom, in which circumstances?

UNLABELLED: Aim Integrated care pathways (ICP) are management technologies which formalise multidisciplinary team-working and enable professionals to examine their roles and responsibilities. ICPs are now being implemented across international healthcare arena, but evidence to support their use is equivocal. The aim of this study was to identify the circumstances in which ICPs are effective, for whom and in what contexts. Methods A systematic review of high-quality randomised controlled trials published between 1980 and 2008 (March) evaluating ICP use in child and adult populations in the full range of healthcare settings. RESULTS: 1 For relatively predictable trajectories of care ICPs can be effective in supporting proactive care management and ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and/or assessments in a timely manner. This can lead to improvements in service quality and service efficiency without adverse consequences for patients. 2 ICPs are an effective mechanism for promoting adherence to guidelines or treatment protocols thereby reducing variation in practice. 3 ICPs can be effective in improving documentation of treatment goals, documentation of communication with patients, carers and health professionals. 4 ICPs can be effective in improving physician agreement about treatment options. 5 ICPs can be effective in supporting decision-making when they incorporate a decision-aide. 6 The evidence considered in this review indicates that ICPs may be particularly effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction, where there is scope for improvement or where roles are new. 7 Even in contexts in which health professionals are already experienced with a particular pathway, ICP use brings additional beneficial effects in directing professional practice in the desired direction. 8 ICPs may be less effective in bringing about service quality and efficiency gains in variable patient trajectories. 9 ICPs may be less effective in bringing about quality improvements in circumstances in which services are already based on best evidence and multidisciplinary working is well established. 10 Depending on their purpose, the benefits of ICPs may be greater for certain patient subgroups than others. 11 We do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of their reported benefits. 12 ICPs may need supporting mechanisms to underpin their implementation and ensure their adoption in practice, particularly in circumstances in which ICP use is a significant change in organisational culture. 13 ICP documentation can introduce scope for new kinds of error. Conclusions ICPs are most effective in contexts where patient care trajectories are predictable. Their value in settings in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear. ICPs are most effective in bringing about behavioural changes where there are identified deficiencies in services; their value in contexts where inter-professional working is well established is less certain. None of the studies reviewed included an economic evaluation and thus it is not known whether their benefits justify the costs of their implementation.

How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

UNLABELLED: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: Across the developed world, we are witnessing an increasing emphasis on the need for more closely coordinated forms of health and social care provision. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) have emerged as a response to this aspiration and are believed by many to address the factors which contribute to service integration. ICPs map out a patient's journey, providing coordination of services for users. They aim to have: 'the right people, doing the right things, in the right order, at the right time, in the right place, with the right outcome'. The value for ICPs in supporting the delivery of care across organisational boundaries, providing greater consistency in practice, improving service continuity and increasing collaboration has been advocated by many. However, there is little evidence to support their use, and the need for systematic evaluations in order to measure their effectiveness has been widely identified. A recent Cochrane review assessed the effects of ICPs on functional outcome, process of care, quality of life and hospitalisation costs of inpatients with acute stroke, but did not specifically focus on service integration or its derivatives. To the best of our knowledge, no such systematic review of the literature exists. OBJECTIVES: • To systematically review all high-quality studies which have evaluated the impact of care pathway technologies on 'service integration' and its derivatives in stroke care • To examine how elements of service integration are defined in such studies • To examine the type of evidence utilised to measure service integration • To analyse the weight of evidence used to support claims about the effectiveness of ICPs on improving service integration • To produce recommendations for ICP developers, users and evaluators. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Types of participants The review focused on the care of adult patients who had suffered a stroke. It included the full spectrum of services - acute care, rehabilitation and long-term support - in hospital and community settings. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest Integrated care pathways were the intervention of interest, defined for the purpose of this review as 'a multidisciplinary tool to improve the quality and efficiency of evidence based care and is used as a communication tool between professionals to manage and standardise the outcome orientated care' Here 'multidisciplinary' is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines. Types of outcomes 'Service integration' was the outcome of interest however, this was defined and measured in the selected studies. Types of studies This review was concerned with how 'service integration' was defined in evaluations of ICPs; the type of evidence utilised in measuring the impact of the intervention and the weight of evidence to support the effectiveness of care pathway technologies on 'service integration'. Studies that made an explicit link between ICPs and service integration were included in the review. Evidence generated from randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economics research was sought. The search was limited to publications after 1980, coinciding with the emergence of ICPs in the healthcare context. Assessment for inclusion of foreign papers was based on the English-language abstract, where available. These were included only if an English translation was available. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: This review excluded studies that: • focused only on a single aspect of stroke care (e.g. dysphasia) • evaluated ICPs as part of a wider program of service development • did not make an explicit link between ICPs and service integration • did not meet the definition of ICP utilised for the purposes of the review • focused exclusively on the outcomes of variance analysis SEARCH STRATEGY: In order to avoid replication, the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Database and the Cochrane Library were searched to establish that no systematic reviews existed and none were in progress. A three-stage search strategy was then used to identify both published and unpublished studies (see Appendix III). DATA COLLECTION: Our search strategy located 2123 papers, of which 39 were retrieved for further evaluation. We critically appraised seven papers, representing five studies. These were all evaluation studies and, as is typical in this field, comprised a range of study designs and data collection methods. Owing to the diversity of the study types included in the review, we developed a single-appraisal checklist and data-extraction tool which could be applied to all research designs.(32) The tool drew on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklists for experimental studies and interpretive and critical research, and also incorporated specific information and issues which were relevant for our purposes (see Appendix VI). This extends the thinking outlined in Lyne et al.(31) in which, drawing on Campbell and Stanley's classic paper, the case is made for developing an appraisal tool which is applicable to all types of evaluation, irrespective of study design. In assessing the quality of the papers, we were sympathetic to the methodological challenges of evaluating complex interventions such as ICPs. We were also cognisant of the very real constraints in which service evaluations are frequently undertaken in healthcare contexts. In accordance with the aims of this particular review, we have included studies, which are methodologically weaker than is typical of many systematic reviews because, in our view, in the absence of stronger evidence, they yield useful information. DATA SYNTHESIS: Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analysis and/or qualitative synthesis was not possible. A narrative summary of the study findings is presented. RESULTS: 1 ICPs can be effective in ensuring that patients receive relevant clinical interventions and/or assessments in a timely manner, although these improvements may reflect better documentation rather than actual changes in practice. 2 ICPs can be effective in improving the documentation of rehabilitation goals, documentation of communication with patients, carers (diagnosis, prognosis and follow-up arrangements) and documentation of notification of primary care physicians of discharge. However, this can create additional burdens of work for staff. 3 Early studies of ICP-managed care in the acute stroke context have demonstrated reduced length of stay without any associated adverse effects on discharge destination, morbidity or mortality. These effects do not reach statistical significance, however, and may reflect wider changes in service provision and a general trend towards reduced length of hospital stay. While later studies in the acute and rehabilitation contexts do not reveal any significant reduction in length of stay, they do report greater documented use of certain clinical interventions and assessments, suggesting that ICPs can be effective in mobilising hospital resources around the patient. 4 ICPs implemented in the context of acute stroke care can be effective in reducing the occurrence of urinary tract infections, although we do not know whether this can be attributed to improved service integration. 5 ICP management in stroke rehabilitation may not be flexible enough to meet diverse patient needs and can result in insufficient attention to higher-level functioning and carer needs influencing perceptions of quality of life. 6 ICP management may assist in clarifying role boundaries and a shared understanding of the work, but this can result in some members of the disciplinary team perceiving that their contribution is not appropriately reflected in the documentation. 7 There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in changing professional behaviours in the desired direction where there is scope for improvement, but in situations in which multidisciplinary working is effective, their positive effects may be limited. Furthermore, it is far from clear what the active ingredients of ICPs actually are. Kwan et al. suggest that it was the process of ICP development that had most impact on behaviours rather than the use of the artefact per se.(20) 8 None of the studies assessed the balance of costs and benefits of ICP use. Therefore, we do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of the reported benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice There is some evidence that ICPs may support certain elements of service integration in the context of stroke care. This seems to be as a result of their ability to support the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of resources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay. ICPs appear to be most successful in improving service coordination in the acute stroke context where patient care trajectories are predictable. Their value in the context of rehabilitation settings in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear. There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in bringing about behavioural changes in contexts where deficiencies in service provision have been identified. Their value in contexts where inter-professional working is well established is less clear. While earlier before and after studies show a reduction in length of stay in ICP-managed care, this may reflect wider healthcare trends, and the failure of later studies to demonstrate further reductions suggests that there may be limits as to how far this can continue to be reduced. There is some evidence to suggest that ICPs bring about improvements in documentation, but we do not know how far documented practice reflects actual practice. It is unclear how ICPs have their effects and the relative importance of the process of development and the artefact in use.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?

BACKGROUND: Across the developed world, we are witnessing an increasing emphasis on the need for more closely coordinated forms of health and social care provision. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) have emerged as a response to this aspiration and are believed by many to address the factors which contribute to service integration. ICPs map out a patient's journey, providing coordination of services for users. They aim to have: 'the right people, doing the right things, in the right order, at the right time, in the right place, with the right outcome'. The value for ICPs in supporting the delivery of care across organisational boundaries, providing greater consistency in practice, improving service continuity and increasing collaboration has been advocated by many. However, there is little evidence to support their use, and the need for systematic evaluations in order to measure their effectiveness has been widely identified. A recent Cochrane review assessed the effects of ICPs on functional outcome, process of care, quality of life and hospitalisation costs of inpatients with acute stroke, but did not specifically focus on service integration or its derivatives. To the best of our knowledge, no such systematic review of the literature exists. OBJECTIVES: INCLUSION CRITERIA: Types of participants The review focused on the care of adult patients who had suffered a stroke. It included the full spectrum of services - acute care, rehabilitation and long-term support - in hospital and community settings.Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest Integrated care pathways were the intervention of interest, defined for the purpose of this review as 'a multidisciplinary tool to improve the quality and efficiency of evidence based care and is used as a communication tool between professionals to manage and standardise the outcome orientated care'. Here 'multidisciplinary' is taken to refer to the involvement of two or more disciplines.Types of outcomes Service integration' was the outcome of interest however, this was defined and measured in the selected studies.Types of studies This review was concerned with how 'service integration' was defined in evaluations of ICPs; the type of evidence utilised in measuring the impact of the intervention and the weight of evidence to support the effectiveness of care pathway technologies on 'service integration'. Studies that made an explicit link between ICPs and service integration were included in the review. Evidence generated from randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, qualitative and health economics research was sought. The search was limited to publications after 1980, coinciding with the emergence of ICPs in the healthcare context. Assessment for inclusion of foreign papers was based on the English-language abstract, where available. These were included only if an English translation was available. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: This review excluded studies that: SEARCH STRATEGY: In order to avoid replication, the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery Database and the Cochrane Library were searched to establish that no systematic reviews existed and none were in progress. A three-stage search strategy was then used to identify both published and unpublished studies (see ). DATA COLLECTION: Our search strategy located 2123 papers, of which 39 were retrieved for further evaluation. We critically appraised seven papers, representing five studies. These were all evaluation studies and, as is typical in this field, comprised a range of study designs and data collection methods. Owing to the diversity of the study types included in the review, we developed a single-appraisal checklist and data-extractiontool which could be applied to all research designs. The tool drew on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklists for experimental studies and interpretive and critical research, and also incorporated specific information and issues which were relevant for our purposes (see ). This extends the thinking outlined in Lyne et al. in which, drawing on Campbell and Stanley's classic paper, the case is made for developing an appraisal tool which is applicable to all types of evaluation, irrespective of study design.In assessing the quality of the papers, we were sympathetic to the methodological challenges of evaluating complex interventions such as ICPs. We were also cognisant of the very real constraints in which service evaluations are frequently undertaken in healthcare contexts. In accordance with the aims of this particular review, we have included studies, which are methodologically weaker than is typical of many systematic reviews because, in our view, in the absence of stronger evidence, they yield useful information. DATA SYNTHESIS: Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, meta-analysis and/or qualitative synthesis was not possible. A narrative summary of the study findings is presented. RESULTS: Therefore, we do not know whether the costs of ICP development and implementation are justified by any of the reported benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice There is some evidence that ICPs may support certain elements of service integration in the context of stroke care. This seems to be as a result of their ability to support the timely implementation of clinical interventions and the mobilisation of resources around the patient without incurring additional increases in length of stay. ICPs appear to be most successful in improving service coordination in the acute stroke context where patient care trajectories are predictable. Their value in the context of rehabilitation settings in which recovery pathways are more variable is less clear. There is some evidence that ICPs may be effective in bringing about behavioural changes in contexts where deficiencies in service provision have been identified. Their value in contexts where inter-professional working is well established is less clear. While earlier before and after studies show a reduction in length of stay in ICP-managed care, this may reflect wider healthcare trends, and the failure of later studies to demonstrate further reductions suggests that there may be limits as to how far this can continue to be reduced. There is some evidence to suggest that ICPs bring about improvements in documentation, but we do not know how far documented practice reflects actual practice. It is unclear how ICPs have their effects and the relative importance of the process of development and the artefact in use. As none of the studies reviewed included an economic evaluation, moreover, it remains unclear whether the benefits of ICPs justify the costs of their implementation.