OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on identifying the indicators used to evaluate ACS care pathways and their effect on the care process and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: This review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The systematic research was conducted using five research databases. Two groups were created by dividing the studies according to their year of publication. The first group included those studies published from 1997 to 2007 ("Group 1"), while the second included those published from 2008 to 2018 ("Group 2"). Selected studies were screened using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.
RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. One study was a randomized controlled trial, 14 were predesigns and postdesigns, and two were longitudinal observational designs. The Group 1 studies demonstrated that ACS care pathways had a positive effect on reducing the length of the hospital stay and the door-to-balloon times. Similar effects were observed for the Group 2 studies.
CONCLUSION: Implementing ACS care pathway helps to organize care processes and decrease treatment delays as well as improve the patient outcomes without adverse consequences for patients or additional resources and costs. While the current level of evidence is inadequate to warrant a formal recommendation, there is a need for more studies with an emphasis on well-designed randomization to measure patient outcomes.
METHODS: A preliminary study was conducted using a pre/posttest one-group quasi-experimental design. A self-administered questionnaire was provided to 37 registered nurses from the cardiac ward of a tertiary hospital. The care pathway was developed on the basis of the current literature, local guidelines, and expert panel advice. The autonomy, teamwork, and burnout levels at the beginning and 4 months after disseminating the care pathway were measured. Implementing the care pathway included educational sessions, training in using the care pathway, and site visits to monitor nursing practices.
RESULTS: Most of the respondents were female (94.6%; n = 35), the median age of the respondents was 26.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 23-31), and the median length of the clinical experience was 4 years (IQR = 2-8). A statistically significant reduction in the mean burnout score was observed (mean of 58.12 vs 52.69, P < .05). A slight improvement in autonomy level was found, although it was not statistically significant. No statistically significant improvement was found in the teamwork levels.
CONCLUSION: The care pathway was associated with reduced nurse burnout. The results showed a slight improvement in autonomy level among coronary care nurses after implementing the care pathway. From a practical viewpoint, the current study can help policy makers and managers reduce burnout. This study highlights the importance of using care pathways as a tool to reorganize the care process and improve the working environment. Managers must support nursing decisions and provide continuous education to enhance nurses' autonomy, which may increase understanding of respective roles, leading to higher levels of teamwork. However, with a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be generalizable.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. The questionnaire included three domains: demographic information, vaccine hesitancy by the health belief model related to the COVID-19 vaccine, and hesitancy by attitude and conspiracy towards the COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 401 adults participated in this study.
RESULTS: The respondents' perceptions of COVID-19 susceptibility and severity showed that the participants did not feel at risk nor believe that COVID-19 was serious. Connivance beliefs were found to be associated with reliance on social media as a major source of information about COVID-19 vaccines, and lack of trust in vaccine manufacturers (pharmaceutical companies). The majority of the respondents were concerned about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, which can be reported as a major barrier to vaccination.
RECOMMENDATIONS: To increase vaccination rates, health authorities need to communicate both the benefits and risks of vaccination. In addition, we recommend using a qualitative study to understand and evaluate the participants' concepts in depth.