tailieunhanh - báo cáo khoa học: "Organizational interventions to implement improvements in patient care: a structured review of reviews"

Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành y học dành cho các bạn tham khảo đề tài: Organizational interventions to implement improvements in patient care: a structured review of reviews | Implementation Science BioMed Central Systematic Review Open Access Organizational interventions to implement improvements in patient care a structured review of reviews Michel Wensing Hub Wollersheim and Richard Grol Address Centre for Quality of Care Research WOK Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre Nijmegen The Netherlands Email Michel Wensing - Hub Wollersheim - Richard Grol - Corresponding author Published 22 February 2006 Received 06 November 2005 Implementation Science 2006 1 2 doi l 748-5908-1 -2 Accepted 22 February 2006 This article is available from http content 1 1 2 2006 Wensing et al licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http licenses by which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background Changing the organization of patient care should contribute to improved patient outcomes as functioning of clinical teams and organizational structures are important enablers for improvement. Objective To provide an overview of the research evidence on effects of organizational strategies to implement improvements in patient care. Design Structured review of published reviews of rigorous evaluations. Data sources Published reviews of studies on organizational interventions. Review methods Searches were conducted in two data-bases Pubmed Cochrane Library and in selected journals. Reviews were included if these were based on a systematic search focused on rigorous evaluations of organizational changes and were published between 1995 and 2003. Two investigators independently extracted information from the reviews regarding their clinical focus methodological quality and main quantitative findings. Results A total of 36 reviews were included but not