Maya M. Jeyaraman

Objectives To identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes. Methods We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool. Results From 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre–post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Conclusions Overall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020148053.

Objectives To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding. Design A scoping review. Data sources A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources. Eligibility criteria Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding. Methods We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages). Results From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either ‘within ED’ (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or ‘outside ED’ interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The ‘within ED’ and ‘outside ED’ interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively. Conclusions We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.

Asthma is the most common pediatric disease, characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness. There are several management options for asthma, but no specific treatment. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are powerful cellular mediators of endocrine, autocrine and paracrine signalling, and can modulate biophysiological function in vitro and in vivo. A thorough investigation of therapeutic effects of EVs in asthma has not been conducted. Therefore, this systematic review is designed to synthesize recent literature on the therapeutic effects of EVs on physiological and biological outcomes of asthma in pre-clinical studies. An electronic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus will be conducted on manuscripts published in the last five years that adhere to standardized guidelines for EV research. Grey literature will also be included. Two reviewers will independently screen the selected studies for title and abstract, and full text based on the eligibility criteria. Data will be extracted, narratively synthesized and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This systematic review will summarize the current knowledge from preclinical studies investigating the therapeutic effects of EVs on asthma. The results will delineate whether EVs can mitigate biological hallmarks of asthma, and if so, describe the underlying mechanisms involved in the process. This insight is crucial for identifying key pathways that can be targeted to alleviate the burden of asthma. The data will also reveal the origin, dosage and biophysical characteristics of beneficial EVs. Overall, our results will provide a scaffold for future intervention and translational studies on asthma treatment.

Behavior change is not simple, and the introduction of guidelines or protocols does not mean that they will be followed. As such, implementation strategies are vital for the uptake and sustainability of changes in medical protocols. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children due to their unique physiological needs. In emergency departments (EDs), where timely decisions are often made, practice change requires thoughtful considerations regarding the best approaches to implementation. As there are many studies reporting on a wide variety of implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs, we aim to identify and map the characteristics of these studies. We will conduct a scoping review to identify various implementation strategies in the emergency management of children using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley), and CINAHL (Ebsco), from inception to May 29, 2019, for implementation studies among the pediatric population (≤ 21 years) in a pediatric emergency setting. Two pairs of reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion and extract the data. We will perform a descriptive, narrative analysis of the characteristics of the identified implementation strategies. We will present specific characteristics and outcome measures of all included studies in a tabular form. The results of this review are expected to help identify and characterize successful implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/h6jv2

Background: A new tool, “risk of bias (ROB) instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures (ROB-NRSE),” was recently developed. It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability in the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of the new ROB-NRSE tool. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods: Reviewers from four participating centers will apprise the ROB of a sample of NRSE publications using ROB-NRSE tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSE publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC₁ statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSE publications using both the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROB-NRSE tool. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply ROB-NRSE tool (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4, to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion: The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRSE depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of ROB-NRSE and how best to use it.

Background: The Cochrane Bias Methods Group recently developed the “Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool to assess ROB for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability of the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods: Reviewers from four participating centers will appraise the ROB of a sample of NRSI publications using the ROBINS-I tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSI publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC₁ statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSI publications using both the New-castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure the evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply the ROBINS-I (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4 to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion: The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRS depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the ROBINS-I tool and how best to use it.

Objectives To provide a comprehensive systematic overview of current evidence from pooled analyses/meta-analyses and systematic reviews (PMASRs) pertaining to dairy consumption and incident cancer and/or all-cause or cancer-specific mortality. Design Overview of reviews. Setting Community setting. Participants The unit of analysis is PMASRs. A total of 42 PMASRs was included in this overview of reviews. Interventions/exposures Any dairy product consumption (eg, milk, yogurt, etc). Primary and secondary outcomes measures Primary outcome measure is development of any type of cancer. Secondary outcome measures are all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality. Results From 9693 citations identified, we included 42 PMASRs (52 study reports) published between 1991 and 2017. Thirty-one (74%) of these was pooled analyses/meta analyses, and only 11 (26%) were systematic reviews and meta-analyses. There was a wide variability in the type of study designs included within the other PMASRs, thus contributing to variable and, in instances, divergent estimates of cancer risk for several cancer subtypes. For example, only one systematic review and meta-analysis exclusively included prospective study designs. Most PMASRs were of low to moderate quality based on the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores. The median AMSTAR score was 5 (IQR 2–7). Our overview identified conflicting evidence from PMASRs on association between dairy consumption and incident cancers or mortality. Heterogeneity in summary estimates reflected the inclusion of variable study designs and overall low methodological quality of individual PMASRs. Conclusions The association between dairy consumption and cancer risk has been explored in PMASRs with a variety of study designs and of low to moderate quality. To fully characterise valid associations between dairy consumption and risk of cancer and/or mortality rigorously conducted, PMASRs including only high-quality prospective study designs are required. Trial registration number CRD42017078463.

Purpose: Strong leadership has been shown to foster change, including loyalty, improved performance and decreased error rates, but there is a dearth of evidence on effectiveness of leadership development programs. To ensure a return on the huge investments made, evidence-based approaches are needed to assess the impact of leadership on health-care establishments. As a part of a pan-Canadian initiative to design an effective evaluative instrument, the purpose of this paper was to identify and summarize evidence on health-care outcomes/return on investment (ROI) indicators and metrics associated with leadership quality, leadership development programs and existing evaluative instruments. Design/methodology/approach: The authors performed a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework, searching eight databases from 2006 through June 2016. Findings: Of 11,868 citations screened, the authors included 223 studies reporting on health-care outcomes/ROI indicators and metrics associated with leadership quality (73 studies), leadership development programs (138 studies) and existing evaluative instruments (12 studies). The extracted ROI indicators and metrics have been summarized in detail. Originality/value: This review provides a snapshot in time of the current evidence on ROI indicators and metrics associated with leadership. Summarized ROI indicators and metrics can be used to design an effective evaluative instrument to assess the impact of leadership on health-care organizations.