Effects of Clinical Pathways: Do They Work?

Abstract

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.