ReviewAnnals of palliative medicine2023
Geographic cohorting by clinical care team: a narrative review.
Review in Annals of palliative medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Response to venom immunotherapy: Exploratory retrospective machine learning clustering analysis.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Research Mentorship Models in Hospital Medicine: A Narrative Review.British journal of hospital medicine (London, England : 2005) · 2025Review
- A New Paradigm in Hospital Medicine: Evaluating the Effects of Geographical Cohorting on Health Care Delivery.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveGeographic cohorting refers to localization of inpatients to designated hospital areas (typically a unit or a set of beds) based on specified criteria. One such criterion that has been commonly discussed and studied since the early days of the hospitalist movement in the US is a patient's assigned clinical care team. Because implementing cohorting of this type requires substantial operational investment, it is important to understand the benefits and the tradeoffs associated with bringing patients into closer spatial proximity with their full team of providers and allowing clinicians to work within a defined clinical space.
methodsWe conducted a narrative review of the evidence around geographic cohorting of patients by clinical care team. We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and Scopus databases, identifying relevant English language articles. We used an inductive approach to developing thematic domains for categorization of article content. KEY CONTENT AND
findingsWe reviewed eighteen articles published between 2008 and 2022, and identified four thematic outcomes domains: patient-centered outcomes, communication, efficiency, and satisfaction. The existing literature demonstrates associations with improved communication and staff satisfaction. The data regarding patient outcomes and overall work efficiency, on the other hand, are equivocal and, in general, limited by study methodology.
conclusionsGeographic cohorting of inpatients according to clinical care team offers some promise for improved workplace culture. More rigorously designed studies are needed, however, to understand its impact on patient outcomes, and there should be added attention paid to throughput metrics and tradeoffs that often limit its implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.