BackgroundEnsuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention intended to improve intermediate patient outcomes and process of care measures for patients with any type of diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened search results, appraised each systematic review using AMSTAR and extracted data from high quality reviews (AMSTAR score ≥ 5). Within reviews, we used vote counting by direction of effect to report the number of studies favouring an intervention for each outcome. We produced summaries of results for each intervention category.ResultsWe identified 125 reviews of varying methodological quality and summarised key findings from 50 high quality reviews. We categorised reviews by quality improvement intervention. Eight reviews were broad based (involving a variety of strategies). Other reviews considered: patient education and support (n = 21), telemedicine (n = 10), provider role changes (n = 7), and organisational changes (n = 4). Reviews reported intermediate patient outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control) (n = 49) and process of care outcomes (n = 9). There was evidence of considerable overlap of included studies between reviews.ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence from high quality systematic reviews that patient education and support, provider role changes, and telemedicine are associated with improvements in glycaemic and vascular risk factor control in patients. There is less evidence about the impact of quality improvement interventions on other key process measures such as screening patients for diabetic complications. This paper provides decision makers with a comprehensive overview of evidence from high quality systematic reviews about the effects of quality improvement interventions on improving diabetes care.

Burnout incurs significant costs to health care organizations and professionals. Mattering, moral distress, and secondary traumatic stress are personal experiences linked to burnout and are byproducts of the organizations in which we work. This article conceptualizes health care organizations as moral communities—groups of people united by a common moral purpose to promote the well-being of others. We argue that health care organizations have a fundamental obligation to mitigate and prevent the costs of caring (eg, moral distress, secondary traumatic stress) and to foster a sense of mattering. Well-functioning moral communities have strong support systems, inclusivity, fairness, open communication, and collaboration and are able to protect their members. In this article, we address mattering, moral distress, and secondary traumatic stress as they relate to burnout. We conclude that leaders of moral communities are responsible for implementing systemic changes that foster mattering among its members and attend to the problems that cause moral distress and burnout.

No abstract

Background Inadequately managed pain is a serious problem for patients with cancer and those who care for them. Smart health systems can help with remote symptom monitoring and management, but they must be designed with meaningful end-user input. Objective This study aims to understand the experience of managing cancer pain at home from the perspective of both patients and family caregivers to inform design of the Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Cancer (BESI-C) smart health system. Methods This was a descriptive pilot study using a multimethod approach. Dyads of patients with cancer and difficult pain and their primary family caregivers were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic. The participant interviews consisted of (1) open-ended questions to explore the overall experience of cancer pain at home, (2) ranking of variables on a Likert-type scale (0, no impact; 5, most impact) that may influence cancer pain at home, and (3) feedback regarding BESI-C system prototypes. Qualitative data were analyzed using a descriptive approach to identity patterns and key themes. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS; basic descriptive statistics and independent sample t tests were run. Results Our sample (n=22; 10 patient-caregiver dyads and 2 patients) uniformly described the experience of managing cancer pain at home as stressful and difficult. Key themes included (1) unpredictability of pain episodes; (2) impact of pain on daily life, especially the negative impact on sleep, activity, and social interactions; and (3) concerns regarding medications. Overall, taking pain medication was rated as the category with the highest impact on a patient’s pain (=4.79), followed by the categories of wellness (=3.60; sleep quality and quantity, physical activity, mood and oral intake) and interaction (=2.69; busyness of home, social or interpersonal interactions, physical closeness or proximity to others, and emotional closeness and connection to others). The category related to environmental factors (temperature, humidity, noise, and light) was rated with the lowest overall impact (=2.51). Patients and family caregivers expressed receptivity to the concept of BESI-C and reported a preference for using a wearable sensor (smart watch) to capture data related to the abrupt onset of difficult cancer pain. Conclusions Smart health systems to support cancer pain management should (1) account for the experience of both the patient and the caregiver, (2) prioritize passive monitoring of physiological and environmental variables to reduce burden, and (3) include functionality that can monitor and track medication intake and efficacy; wellness variables, such as sleep quality and quantity, physical activity, mood, and oral intake; and levels of social interaction and engagement. Systems must consider privacy and data sharing concerns and incorporate feasible strategies to capture and characterize rapid-onset symptoms.