BackgroundEmergency department crowding is a major global healthcare issue. There is much debate as to the causes of the phenomenon, leading to difficulties in developing successful, targeted solutions.AimThe aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse and summarise the findings of peer-reviewed research studies investigating the causes and consequences of, and solutions to, emergency department crowding.MethodThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A structured search of four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed research publications aimed at investigating the causes or consequences of, or solutions to, emergency department crowding, published between January 2000 and June 2018. Two reviewers used validated critical appraisal tools to independently assess the quality of the studies. The study protocol was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017073439).ResultsFrom 4,131 identified studies and 162 full text reviews, 102 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were retrospective cohort studies, with the greatest proportion (51%) trialling or modelling potential solutions to emergency department crowding. Fourteen studies examined causes and 40 investigated consequences. Two studies looked at both causes and consequences, and two investigated causes and solutions.ConclusionsThe negative consequences of ED crowding are well established, including poorer patient outcomes and the inability of staff to adhere to guideline-recommended treatment. This review identified a mismatch between causes and solutions. The majority of identified causes related to the number and type of people attending ED and timely discharge from ED, while reported solutions focused on efficient patient flow within the ED. Solutions aimed at the introduction of whole-of-system initiatives to meet timed patient disposition targets, as well as extended hours of primary care, demonstrated promising outcomes. While the review identified increased presentations by the elderly with complex and chronic conditions as an emerging and widespread driver of crowding, more research is required to isolate the precise local factors leading to ED crowding, with system-wide solutions tailored to address identified causes.

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.

No abstract