BackgroundQuality of life (QoL) outcomes are used to monitor quality of care for older adults accessing aged care services, yet it remains unclear which QoL instruments best meet older adults’, providers’ and policymakers’ needs. This review aimed to (1) identify QoL instruments used in aged care and describe them in terms of QoL domains measured and logistical details; (2) summarise in which aged care settings the instruments have been used and (3) discuss factors to consider in deciding on the suitability of QoL instruments for use in aged care services.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to 2021.Eligibility criteriaInstruments were included if they were designed for adults (>18 years), available in English, been applied in a peer-reviewed research study examining QoL outcomes in adults >65 years accessing aged care (including home/social care, residential/long-term care) and had reported psychometrics.Data extraction and synthesisTwo researchers independently reviewed the measures and extracted the data. Data synthesis was performed via narrative review of eligible instruments.Results292 articles reporting on 29 QoL instruments were included. Eight domains of QoL were addressed: physical health, mental health, emotional state, social connection, environment, autonomy and overall QoL. The period between 1990 and 2000 produced the greatest number of newly developed instruments. The EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Short Form-series were used across multiple aged care contexts including home and residential care. More recent instruments (eg, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)) tend to capture emotional sentiment towards personal circumstances and higher order care needs, in comparison with more established instruments (eg, EQ-5D) which are largely focused on health status.ConclusionsA comprehensive list of QoL instruments and their characteristics is provided to inform instrument choice for use in research or for care quality assurance in aged care settings, depending on needs and interests of users.

Introduction:The emergent field of learning health systems (LHSs) has been rapidly evolving as the concept continues to be embraced by researchers, managers, and clinicians. This paper reports on a scoping review and bibliometric analysis of the LHS literature to identify key topic areas and examine the influence and spread of recent research.Methods: We conducted a scoping review of LHS literature published between January 2016 and May 2020. The authors extracted publication data (eg, journal, country, authors, citation count, keywords) and reviewed full-texts to identify: type of study (empirical, non-empirical, or review), degree of focus (general or specific), and the reference used when defining LHSs.Results: A total of 272 publications were included in this review. Almost two thirds (65.1%) of the included articles were non-empirical and over two-thirds (68.4%) were from authors in the United States. More than half of the publications focused on specific areas, for example: oncology, cardiovascular care, and genomic medicine. Other key topic areas included: ethics, research, quality improvement, and electronic health records. We identified that definitions of the LHS concept are converging; however, many papers focused on data platforms and analytical processes rather than organisational and behavioural factors to support change and learning activities. Conclusions:The literature on LHSs remains largely theoretical with definitions of LHSs focusing on technical processes to reuse data collected during the clinical process and embedding analysed data back into the system. A shift in the literature to empirical LHS studies with consideration of organisational and human factors is warranted.

ObjectiveTo undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals.DesignUmbrella review.SettingInterventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings.ParticipantsChildren and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions.Data sourcesPsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL.Primary and secondary outcome measuresClinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge.ResultsA total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care.ConclusionsA consideration of local infrastructure and individual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems.Trial registration number10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU.

No abstract