Conectar
To synthesise evidence on the types of Medication Management Services (MMS) and establish the effect of the different MMS interventions on Economic, Clinical and Humanistic Outcomes (ECHO) in dialysis patients.
Integrative review.
A systematic search was conducted from May to June 2024 using four databases: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library and Web of Science.
This review followed Whittemore and Knafl's framework and adhered to the PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently conducted by three reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set. Only English-language articles, primary and quality improvement studies were included, with no restrictions on publication date. Findings were narratively synthesised and thematically grouped by review aims.
A total of 14 articles were included. This review identified (1) the types of MMS provided to renal dialysis patients, and (2) the effects of these services on ECHO. Services varied in practices, including obtaining accurate medication histories, identifying discrepancies, reviewing laboratory results, making recommendations to prescribers, resolving issues based on collaborative agreements and providing patient education. These services were compared in terms of economic outcomes (e.g., 30-day readmission rates), clinical outcomes (e.g., medication discrepancies, MRPs, laboratory and clinical parameters) and humanistic outcomes (e.g., medication burden-related quality of life).
This review highlighted various types of MMS available for dialysis patients and their impact on ECHO. Key benefits include recognising medication discrepancies, reducing MRPs, improving laboratory and clinical parameters, lowering 30-day readmission rates and enhancing medication burden-related quality of life. However, limitations such as retrospective studies, English-only publications and limited comparison across MMS models highlight the need for additional robust and diverse research.
This integrative review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
To summarise the evidence and present the state of the science on pressure injury care bundles in the community. Specifically, this review examined (i) the extent of pressure injury by studying its prevalence and incidence in the last 10 years, (ii) the risk factors associated with community-acquired pressure injury and (iii) the components and outcomes associated with effective pressure injury care bundles in the community.
PI care bundles have effectively reduced PI rates; however, there is limited evidence of care bundles used in community settings.
Integrative review.
This integrative review is guided by the Whittemore and Knafl framework and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Quality appraisal was applied to assess the quality of selected articles. Data relevant to the review aims were extracted, and findings were synthesised and presented. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched. Studies published in the English language between 2012 and 2022 were retrieved.
A total of 89 articles were retrieved; 25 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies reported the point prevalence and period prevalence of community-acquired pressure injuries, and only one study reported the incidence of community-acquired pressure injuries. The point prevalence and period prevalence of community-acquired pressure injury were 0.02% to 10.8% and 2.7% to 86.4%, respectively, and the cumulative incidence was 1.3%. The risk factors for community-acquired pressure injury assessed vary between studies; older age, poor nutrition, immobility and multiple comorbidities are commonly reported. Socioeconomic and caregiving factors were not studied. Very few studies evaluated pressure injury care bundles in the community. Even so, the components of the pressure injury care bundle vary between studies.
Pressure injury development is associated with a complex interplay of factors. Socioeconomic and caregiving factors were not examined in any of the papers. There is a lack of understanding of the components and outcomes associated with effective pressure injury care bundles in the community.
Despite their prevalence, community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) are often underreported due to inadequate follow-up and reporting mechanisms. Although the risk factors for CAPIs vary across studies, older age, impaired mobility, multiple comorbidities and malnutrition consistently emerge as key contributors. Pressure injury preventive care bundles are more commonly used in the acute care setting rather than the community setting.
No Patient or Public Contribution.
FreshRSS 