METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.
RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.
CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: This study was conducted from January-July 2021 using the cross-sectional approach. The sample consisted of 168 nurses working in a private hospital in Surabaya City, East Java, Indonesia. Meanwhile, the data were collected using the Patient Care Manager Role Scale (PCMRS) and analyzed by multiple logistic regression to find the correlation between the variables.
RESULTS: A higher percentage of nurses namely 64.3% had compliance in COVID-19 clinical pathways with an average PCMRS score of 27.81 ± 2.43. Nurses with a high-level patient care manager role level had a significant compliance risk with odds ratio [OR] 440.137, 95% confidence interval [CI] [51.850-3736.184], and p-value = 0.000 compared to those with a low role.
CONCLUSION: The role of patient care manager and compliance with COVID-19 clinical pathways correlated significantly. Based on the results, several actions are needed for the early identification of patient service managers' roles to ensure compliance with COVID-19 clinical pathways and reduce the number of cases in Indonesia.
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: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Five specialist periodontal clinics in the Ministry of Health represented the public sector in providing clinical and cost data for this study. Newly-diagnosed periodontitis patients (N = 165) were recruited and followed up for one year of specialist periodontal care. Direct and indirect costs from the societal viewpoint were included in the cost analysis. They were measured in 2012 Ringgit Malaysia (MYR) and estimated from the societal perspective using activity-based and step-down costing methods, and substantiated by clinical pathways. Cost of dental equipment, consumables and labour (average treatment time) for each procedure was measured using activity-based costing method. Meanwhile, unit cost calculations for clinic administration, utilities and maintenance used step-down approach. Patient expenditures and absence from work were recorded via diary entries. The conversion from MYR to Euro was based on the 2012 rate (1€ = MYR4).
RESULTS: A total of 2900 procedures were provided, with an average cost of MYR 2820 (€705) per patient for the study year, and MYR 376 (€94) per outpatient visit. Out of this, 90% was contributed by provider cost and 10% by patient cost; 94% for direct cost and 4% for lost productivity. Treatment of aggressive periodontitis was significantly higher than for chronic periodontitis (t-test, P = 0.003). Higher costs were expended as disease severity increased (ANOVA, P = 0.022) and for patients requiring surgeries (ANOVA, P