Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796485›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors.

M Zwarenstein, W Bryant

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00461201 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2009, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of an Intervention in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Care for Patients Requesting Same Day Consultations by Nurse Practitioner vs General Practitioners

TypeinterventionalSponsorCatalan Institute of HealthRan2009Enrolled1,640ConditionsAcute Disease, Nursing Care, Ambulatory Care, Family PracticeArmsNurse practitioner care of patients
NCT03070977 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Interprofessional Training in a Psychiatric Study Unit

TypeinterventionalSponsorPsychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand, DenmarkRan2016 to 2018Enrolled430ConditionsInterdisciplinary CommunicationArmsInterprofessional clinical training unit
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

M ZwarensteinHealth Systems Division, Centre for Epidemiological Research in Southern Africa, Medical Research Council, Fransie van Zyl Drive, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505. merrick.zwarenstein@mrc.ac.za
W Bryant

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of nurse-doctor collaboration contributes to problems in quality and efficiency of patient care.

objectivesTo assess the effects of interventions designed to improve nurse-doctor collaboration. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register and database of studies awaiting assessment, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, MEDLINE, and reference lists of articles up to the end of October 1999. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series of interventions to improve collaboration between nursing and medical professionals sharing patient care in primary or hospital care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies; a second reviewer undertook duplicate assessments on the eligibility of some articles and data abstraction on all included studies. MAIN

resultsTwo trials involving 1945 people were included. One six month trial involving 1102 admissions evaluated daily, structured, team ward rounds, in which nurses, doctors and other professionals made care decisions jointly. There was shortened average length of hospital stay (LOS) from 6.06 to 5.46 days, and reduced hospital charges from US$ 8090 to 6681. There were no differences in mortality rates or the type of care to which patients were discharged. Another three month trial involving 843 admissions compared two female wards and evaluated a four times per week round. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control wards in total average length of stay for all patients (11.7 days in intervention ward versus 11.6 in the control ward). Excluding patients who died in hospital revealed shortened length of stay in the intervention ward (intervention ward 10.5 days, control ward 11.9). Mortality rates were not significantly different. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsIncreasing collaboration improved outcomes of importance to patients and to health care managers. These gains were moderate and affected health care processes rather than outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. The logistic challenge presented by the complexity of the interventions and the need for large sample sizes due to the likely modest impact and rarity of outcome events may best be met by multi-centre studies. Before launching such studies qualitative research is needed to identify barriers to collaboration. Interventions other than nurse-doctor ward rounds and team meetings should also be tested.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorInterprofessional RelationsDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansNursesPhysiciansQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.