The effect of different care delivery models in a hospital setting on patient‐ and nurse‐related outcomes: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

Author:

Geltmeyer Klara1ORCID,Duprez Veerle1ORCID,Blondeel Marie2,Serraes Brecht2,Eeckloo Kristof34,Malfait Simon14ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Nursing Department Ghent University Hospital Ghent Belgium

2. Clinical Nursing & Allied Health Research and Development Group VITAZ (general) Hospital and Health Care Sint‐Niklaas Belgium

3. Strategic Policy Cell Ghent University Hospital Ghent Belgium

4. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ghent University Ghent Belgium

Abstract

AbstractAimTo synthesize and assess the effectiveness of different care delivery models in a hospital setting, taking into account patient‐ and nurse‐related outcomes.DesignA systematic review with narrative synthesis in which a comparison was made between different care delivery models.MethodsThe search string consisted of four clusters: ‘nursing’, ‘care delivery models’, ‘hospital setting’ and ‘quantitative research designs’. Four electronic databases were searched from the inception of the databases to January 2023: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science.ResultsIn total, 19 studies were included in the systematic review. The most commonly compared care delivery models were functional nursing to primary nursing (n = 6), patient allocation to team nursing (n = 4), team nursing to primary nursing (n = 3) and functional nursing to modular nursing (n = 3). Only one randomized crossover trial was found, other included studies were pretest–posttest designs or quasi‐experimental designs. The implementation of a nursing care delivery model was the study intervention. The following aspects of the intervention were not reported or inadequately described by the majority of the authors; tailoring of an intervention, modifications to an intervention and the adherence or fidelity to the intervention. Job satisfaction and quality of nursing care were the most commonly reported nursing outcomes, while patient satisfaction was the most commonly reported patient outcome. Due to a high heterogeneity in outcome measures between the studies, a meta‐analysis of the included studies was not possible. All included studies had a high risk of overall bias.ConclusionThis systematic review found mixed evidence, inconsistent reporting of certain elements of the interventions, high heterogeneity in outcome measures and low methodological quality. Although this systematic review could not answer which nursing care delivery model is the most effective or most promising, other important findings from this review may inform future research.Impact There are differences in care delivery model descriptions and a lack of agreement on the strengths and weaknesses of the care delivery models. No clear‐cut answer can be given about the effect of different care delivery models in a hospital setting on patient‐ and nurse‐related outcomes. Job satisfaction and quality of nursing care were the most commonly reported nursing outcomes, while patient satisfaction was the most commonly reported patient outcome. This review can support the development of future care delivery redesign strategies. Reporting methodThe systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA).Patient or public contributionNo patient or public contribution.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference52 articles.

1. Nursing organizational practice and its relationship with other features of ward organization and job satisfaction;Adams A.;Journal of Advanced Nursing,1998

2. Formative evaluation: Implementation of primary nursing;Alcock D.;The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research = Revue Canadienne de Recherche en Sciences Infirmieres,1993

3. Implementing modular nursing in a long‐term care facility;Anderson C. L.;JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration,1993

4. Randomised controlled trials: an introduction for nurse researchers

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3