The antenatal ward care delivery map: a team model approach

Towards standardisation of evidence-based clinical care process specifications

There is a strong push towards standardisation of treatment approaches, care processes and documentation of clinical practice. However, confusion persists regarding terminology and description of many clinical care process specifications which this research seeks to resolve by developing a taxonomic characterisation of clinical care process specifications. Literature on clinical care process specifications was analysed, creating the starting point for identifying common characteristics and how each is constructed and used in the clinical setting. A taxonomy for clinical care process specifications is presented. The De Bleser approach to limited clinical care process specifications characterisation was extended and each clinical care process specification is successfully characterised in terms of purpose, core elements and relationship to the other clinical care process specification types. A case study on the diagnosis and treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the United Kingdom was used to evaluate the taxonomy and demonstrate how the characterisation framework applies. Standardising clinical care process specifications ensures that the format and content are consistent with expectations, can be read more quickly and high-quality information can be recorded about the patient. Standardisation also enables computer interpretability, which is important in integrating Learning Health Systems into the modern clinical environment. The approach presented allows terminologies for clinical care process specifications that were widely used interchangeably to be easily distinguished, thus, eliminating the existing confusion.

Effects of Clinical Pathways: Do They Work?

Objective:

Evaluation of the effect of implementing clinical pathways is a relatively new field in health care research. Little is known about the way in which practice is influenced by the implementation of clinical pathways, and to what degree. This review takes significant steps in answering these questions by describing the parameters that are used in literature as indicators to evaluate clinical pathways.

Methods:

A Medline-based review of literature published between 2000 and 2002 was carried out using the keywords ‘clinical pathway’, ‘critical pathway’, ‘care map’, ‘care pathway’ and ‘integrated care pathway’. Articles were selected if they contained any form of evaluation, outcome or indicator concerning the use of clinical pathways. This included all types of research design and sample size. A total of 200 articles were selected. Relevant data were summarized using the following characteristics: country of origin, clinical field of expertise, research design, sample size, clinical outcome indicators, service indicators, team indicators, process indicators and financial indicators. For each domain a positive, negative or ‘no effect’ conclusion was recorded. Excel® and Statistica® were used to obtain percentages and graphics.

Results:

A total of 34% of the articles on clinical pathways contained some form of evaluation concerning the effect of the implementation. Out of these articles, clinical outcome was emphasized in 65.5%, financial effects in 53%) and process effects were investigated by 50% of the studies. Team and service effects were discussed less often (24% and 18.5%), respectively). For clinical outcome, team, process and financial effects a variety of indicators were recorded. Service effects were almost always measured as ‘patient satisfaction’. The majority of the literature concluded that positive effects result from the implementation of clinical pathways.

Conclusion:

On a macro level clinical pathways result globally in positive effects. Negative results, however, were also present in the literature. In particular for process, team and service evaluation concerning the use of clinical pathways there is still a great need for research.

Defining pathways

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

The term 'clinical pathway' is internationally accepted in all settings of healthcare management. The way in which clinical pathways have been developed in the United Kingdom differs from that in the USA. Besides the international differences in the purpose, many alternative names also can be found. These have led to confusion. There is no single, widely accepted definition of a clinical pathway. The aim of the study was to survey the definitions used in describing the concept and to derive key characteristics of clinical pathways.

METHOD

Using the PubMed, we conducted a review of literature published between January 2000 and December 2003 using the following terms: critical pathway, clinical pathway, integrated care pathway, care pathway and care map. All reports reviewed had to use the concept, as defined by the Medical Subject Headings term, to be considered. To assess all definitions, the concept analysis method was used.

RESULTS

In 82 of the 263 eligible articles, the definition of pathway was given. Totally, we found 84 different definitions. Each definition was rephrased by taking into consideration the following three features inherent to pathways: nouns, characteristics and aims and outcomes. Every feature was further divided into categories.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical pathway is a method for the patient-care management of a well-defined group of patients during a well-defined period of time. A clinical pathway explicitly states the goals and key elements of care based on Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) guidelines, best practice and patient expectations by facilitating the communication, coordinating roles and sequencing the activities of the multidisciplinary care team, patients and their relatives; by documenting, monitoring and evaluating variances; and by providing the necessary resources and outcomes. The aim of a clinical pathway is to improve the quality of care, reduce risks, increase patient satisfaction and increase the efficiency in the use of resources.