Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.

BackgroundClinical pathways are tools used to guide evidence-based healthcare that have been implemented internationally since the 1980s. However, there is widespread lack of agreement on the impact of clinical pathways on hospital resources and patient outcomes. This can be partially attributed to the confusion for both researchers and healthcare workers regarding what constitutes a clinical pathway. This paper describes efforts made by a team of Cochrane Review authors to develop criteria to assist in the objective identification of clinical pathway studies from the literature.MethodsWe undertook a four-stage process aiming to develop criteria to define a clinical pathway: (1) identify publications exploring the definition of a clinical pathway; (2) derive draft criteria; (3) pilot test the criteria; and (4) modify criteria to maximise agreement between review authors.ResultsPrevious literature and liaison with the European Pathways Association resulted in five criteria being used to define a clinical pathway: (1) the intervention was a structured multidisciplinary plan of care; (2) the intervention was used to translate guidelines or evidence into local structures; (3) the intervention detailed the steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other 'inventory of actions'; (4) the intervention had timeframes or criteria-based progression; and (5) the intervention aimed to standardise care for a specific clinical problem, procedure or episode of healthcare in a specific population. After pilot testing it was decided that if an intervention met the first criteria (a structured multidisciplinary plan of care) plus three out of the other four criteria then it was included as a clinical pathway for the purposes of this review. In all, 27 studies were included in the final review. The authors of the included studies referred to these interventions as 'clinical pathways', 'protocols', 'care model', 'care map', 'multidisciplinary care', evidence-based care' and 'guideline'.ConclusionsThe criteria used for the identification of relevant studies for this Cochrane Review can be used as a foundation for the development of a standardised, internationally accepted definition of a clinical pathway.

This paper is a summary version of the previously published Cochrane review. It may increase the reach of the topic to health researchers and practitioners and encourage further discussion. The systematic review aims to summarize the evidence and assess the effect of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs. The authors searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, NHS EED, and Global Health. Twenty-seven studies considering a total of 11,398 participants were included for analysis. The main results were a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio 0.58: 95% CI [0.36, 0.94] and improved documentation (odds ratio 11.95: 95% CI [4.72, 30.30]) associated with clinical pathways. Considerable variation in study design and settings prevented statistical pooling of results for length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs. The authors concluded that clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation.

The test for anal dysplasia is still largely unknown among Australian gay men and they currently have poor sense of personal susceptibility to the disease. Health education strategies are suggested to improve this situation.

A central strategy in addressing health disparities experienced by Indigenous people has been based on a concern with workforce improvement. In this paper, the Indigenous Australian healthcare workforce literature since 1977 is reviewed and its scope of concern, as being often limited to questions of ‘supply’, is critiqued. The pipeline metaphor, whether used explicitly or implied, regularly focuses attention on closing the gap on Indigenous representation within the health workforce. The exception though is the discourse concerning Indigenous Health Workers (IHWs), where questions concerning the legitimacy of the role continue to abound within a workforce hierarchy where community knowledge, though shown to be crucial to culturally safe health service provision, is trumped by the other health professions whose knowledges and legitimacy are not in question. This contrast exemplifies the need to examine the working of power not just ‘supply’. The pipeline metaphor is disrupted with concerns about a range of other ‘gaps’ – gaps in the recognition of Indigenous knowledges, in organisational structures, in governance and in self-awareness by the health professions of their whiteness. As the health system continues to measure workforce development in terms of pipeline capacity, our study questions what happens beyond the pipeline.