Huddles and their effectiveness at the frontlines of clinical care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Brief, stand-up meetings known as huddles may improve clinical care, but knowledge about huddle implementation and effectiveness at the frontlines is fragmented and setting specific. This work provides a comprehensive overview of huddles used in diverse health care settings, examines the empirical support for huddle effectiveness, and identifies knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. METHODS: A scoping review was completed by searching the databases PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and OvidSP for studies published in English from inception to May 31, 2019. Eligible studies described huddles that (1) took place in a clinical or medical setting providing health care patient services, (2) included frontline staff members, (3) were used to improve care quality, and (4) were studied empirically. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; seven reviewers independently abstracted data from full texts. RESULTS: Of 2,185 identified studies, 158 met inclusion criteria. The majority (67.7%) of studies described huddles used to improve team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Huddles positively impacted team process outcomes in 67.7% of studies, including improvements in efficiency, process-based functioning, and communication across clinical roles (64.4%); situational awareness and staff perceptions of safety and safety climate (44.6%); and staff satisfaction and engagement (29.7%). Almost half of studies (44.3%) reported huddles positively impacting clinical care outcomes such as patients receiving timely and/or evidence-based assessments and care (31.4%); decreased medical errors and adverse drug events (24.3%); and decreased rates of other negative outcomes (20.0%). DISCUSSION: Huddles involving frontline staff are an increasingly prevalent practice across diverse health care settings. Huddles are generally interdisciplinary and aimed at improving team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Data from the scoping review point to the effectiveness of huddles at improving work and team process outcomes and indicate the positive impact of huddles can extend beyond processes to include improvements in clinical outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework on 18 January 2019 ( https://osf.io/bdj2x/ ).

Use of huddles among frontline staff in clinical settings: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the current evidence on huddles in healthcare settings involving frontline staff. INTRODUCTION: Team-based models are gaining prominence as the preferred method for delivering coordinated, cost-effective, high-quality health care. Huddles are a powerful method for building relationships among frontline staff members. Currently, no reviews have described huddles used among frontline staff in clinical settings. There is therefore a need to identify gaps in the literature on evidence informing this practice for a greater understanding of the resources available for frontline staff to implement huddles. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review will consider qualitative studies, experimental and quasi-experimental studies, analytic observational studies and descriptive cross-sectional studies that explore the use of frontline staff huddles to improve quality of care in a clinical setting. METHODS: An initial limited search of PubMed and CINAHL Plus with Full Text will be performed, followed by analysis of the title, abstract and MeSH used to describe the article. Second, searches of PubMed, EBSCOhost and ProQuest will be conducted, followed by searches in reference lists of all articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Studies published in English from inception to the present will be considered. Retrieved papers will be screened for inclusion by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted and presented in tabular form and a narrative summary that align with the review's objective.

Visual rating and volumetric measurement of medial temporal atrophy in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort: baseline diagnosis and the prediction of MCI outcome.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the clinical utility of visual ratings and volumetric measurements of medial temporal atrophy among subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neurorimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort. METHODS: A sample of 189 subjects from the ADNI, Phase 1 (ADNI-1), was chosen as follows: 49 cognitively normal (CN), 89 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 50 with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Structural MRI images were downloaded from the ADNI website, and a visual rating system (VRS) was used to obtain semi-quantitative ratings of the hippocampus (HPC) and entorhinal cortex (ERC). VRS ratings and FreeSurfer measures of the HPC and ERC were used to predict (i) baseline diagnosis and (ii) progression to AD among subjects with MCI at baseline. RESULTS: VRS and FreeSurfer measures of ERC were equivalent in classifying subjects at baseline, but FreeSurfer measures of HPC were superior to VRS measures for classifying CN versus MCI subjects. VRS and FreeSurfer measures of both HPC and ERC were significant predictors of progression from MCI to AD. However, VRS ratings of ERC were superior to other MRI measures. MCI subjects with minimal ERC atrophy by VRS had a threefold lower progression rate to AD at 3.2 years compared with those with mild, moderate, or severe atrophy (23% vs 63%, 69%, and 87%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Visual ratings of HPC and ERC provide useful information to a physician in a clinical setting. Visual ratings of ERC may be especially useful in following patients with MCI.