BackgroundMiddle managers are in a unique position to promote the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare organizations, yet knowledge of middle managers’ role in implementation and determinants (e.g., individual-, organizational-, and system-level factors) which influence their role remains fractured, spanning decades and disciplines. To synthesize understanding, we undertook a systematic review of studies of middle managers’ role in healthcare EBP implementation and determinants of that role.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Business Source Complete (Ebsco) for literature on middle managers’ role in healthcare EBP implementation and its determinants. We abstracted data from records that met inclusion criteria (i.e., written in English, peer-reviewed, and reporting either a protocol or results of an empirical study) into a matrix for analysis. We summarized categorical variables using descriptive statistics. To analyze qualitative data, we used a priori codes and then allowed additional themes to emerge.ResultsOne hundred five records, spanning across several countries and healthcare settings and relating to a range of EBPs, met our inclusion criteria. Studies of middle managers’ role in healthcare EBP implementation and its determinants substantially increased from 1996 to 2015. Results from included studies suggest that middle managers shape implementation climate in addition to fulfilling the four roles hypothesized in extant theory of middle managers’ role in implementation. However, extant studies offered little understanding of determinants of middle managers’ role.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that middle managers may play an important role in facilitating EBP implementation. Included studies offered little understanding regarding the relative importance of various roles, potential moderators of the relationship between middle managers’ roles and EBP implementation, or determinants of middle managers’ role in EBP implementation. Future studies should seek to understand determinants and moderators of middle managers’ role. Clearer understanding may facilitate the translation of evidence into practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0843-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effect of emergency department (ED) interventions on clinical, utilization, and care experience outcomes for older adults. DESIGN A conceptual model informed, protocol‐based systematic review. SETTING Emergency Department (ED). PARTICIPANTS Older adults 65 years of age and older. METHODS AND MEASUREMENT Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for English‐language studies published through December 2017. Studies evaluating the use of one or more eligible intervention strategies (discharge planning, case management, medication safety or management, and geriatric EDs including those that cited the 2014 Geriatric ED Guidelines) with adults 65 years of age and older were included. Studies were classified by the number of intervention strategies used (ie, single strategy or multi‐strategy) and key intervention components present (ie, assessment, referral plus follow‐up, and contact both before and after ED discharge [“bridge”]). The effect of ED interventions on clinical (functional status, quality of life [QOL]), patient experience, and utilization (hospitalization, ED return visit) outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS A total of 2000 citations were identified; 17 articles describing 15 unique studies (9 randomized and 6 nonrandomized) met eligibility criteria and were included in analyses. ED interventions showed a mixed pattern of effects. Overall, there was a small positive effect of ED interventions on functional status but no effects on QOL, patient experience, hospitalization at or after the initial ED index visit, or ED return visit. CONCLUSION Studies using two or more intervention strategies may be associated with the greatest effects on clinical and utilization outcomes. More comprehensive interventions, defined as those with all three key intervention components present, may be associated with some positive outcomes.

Background Past studies examining barriers to patient portal adoption have been conducted with a small number of patients and health care settings, limiting generalizability. Objective This study had the following two objectives: (1) to assess the prevalence of barriers to patient portal adoption among nonadopters and (2) to examine the association between nonadopter characteristics and reported barriers in a nationally representative sample. Methods Data from this study were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey. We calculated descriptive statistics to determine the most prevalent barriers and conducted multiple variable logistic regression analysis to examine which characteristics were associated with the reported barriers. Results The sample included 4815 individuals. Among these, 2828 individuals (58.73%) had not adopted a patient portal. Among the nonadopters (n=2828), the most prevalent barriers were patient preference for in-person communication (1810/2828, 64.00%), no perceived need for the patient portal (1385/2828, 48.97%), and lack of comfort and experience with computers (735/2828, 25.99%). Less commonly, individuals reported having no patient portal (650/2828, 22.98%), no internet access (650/2828, 22.98%), privacy concerns (594/2828, 21.00%), difficulty logging on (537/2828, 18.99%), and multiple patient portals (255/2828, 9.02%) as barriers. Men had significantly lower odds of indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider compared with women (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94; P=.01). Older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02; P<.001), having a chronic condition (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.44-2.33; P<.001), and having an income lower than US $20,000 (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11-2.34; P=.01) were positively associated with indicating a preference for speaking directly to a provider. Hispanic individuals had significantly higher odds of indicating that they had no need for a patient portal (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.24-2.05; P<.001) compared with non-Hispanic individuals. Older individuals (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.06; P<.001), individuals with less than a high school diploma (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.79-5.53; P<.001), and individuals with a household income of less than US $20,000 (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.88-4.11; P<.001) had significantly higher odds of indicating that they were uncomfortable with a computer. Conclusions The most common barriers to patient portal adoption are preference for in-person communication, not having a need for the patient portal, and feeling uncomfortable with computers, which are barriers that are modifiable and can be intervened upon. Patient characteristics can help predict which patients are most likely to experience certain barriers to patient portal adoption. Further research is needed to tailor implementation approaches based on patients’ needs and preferences.

BACKGROUND: Technology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes. METHODS: English-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias. RESULTS: The literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer pa-systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

ImportancePatients with cancer typically have greater financial hardships and time costs than individuals without cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this, while posing substantial challenges to delivering cancer care and resulting in important changes in care-delivery models, including the rapid adoption of telehealth.ObjectiveTo estimate patient travel, time, and cost savings associated with telehealth for cancer care delivery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsAn economic evaluation of cost savings from completed telehealth visits from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, in a single-institution National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All patients aged 18 to 65 years who completed telehealth visits within the designated time frame and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record were included in the study cohort. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to June 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was estimated patient cost savings from telehealth, which included 2 components: costs of travel (defined as roundtrip distance saved from car travel) and potential loss of productivity due to the medical visit (defined as loss of income from roundtrip travel plus loss of income from in-person clinic visits). Two different models with a combination of 2 different mileage rates ($0.56 and $0.82 per mile) and census tract–level median hourly wages were used.ResultsThe study included 25 496 telehealth visits with 11 688 patients. There were 4525 (3795 patients) new or established visits and 20 971 (10 049 patients) follow-up visits. Median (IQR) age was 55.0 (46.0-61.0) years among the telehealth visits, with 15 663 visits (61.4%) by women and 18 360 visits (72.0%) by Hispanic non-White patients. According to cost models, the estimated mean (SD) total cost savings ranged from $147.4 ($120.1) at $0.56/mile to $186.1 ($156.9) at $0.82/mile. For new or established visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit ranged from $176.6 ($136.3) at $0.56/mile to $222.8 ($177.4) at $0.82/mile, and for follow-up visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit was $141.1 ($115.3) at $0.56/mile to $178.1 ($150.9) at $0.82/mile.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this economic evaluation, telehealth was associated with savings in patients time and travel costs, which may reduce the financial toxicity of cancer care. Expansion of telehealth oncology services may be an effective strategy to reduce the financial burden among patients with cancer.