https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2308-0579
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Integrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They have the potential to enhance continuity of care, patient safety, patient satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork and staff education. In order to inform the development of neurosurgical ICPs in the future, we performed a systematic review to aggregate examples of neurosurgical ICP, to consider their impact and design features that may be associated with their success.
Methods
Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for relevant literature published from date of inception to July 2020. Primary studies reporting details of neurosurgical ICPs, across all pathologies and age groups were eligible for inclusion. Patient outcomes in each case were also recorded.
Results
Twenty-four studies were included in our final dataset, from the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, China, Korea, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, and a number of sub-specialties. 3 for cerebrospinal fluid diversion, 1 functional, 2 neurovascular, 1 neuro-oncology, 2 paediatric, 2 skull base, 10 spine, 1 for trauma, 2 miscellaneous (other craniotomies). All were single centre studies with no regional or national examples. Thirteen were cohort studies while 11 were case series which lacked a control group. Effectiveness was typically evaluated using hospital or professional performance metrics, such as length of stay (n = 11, 45.8%) or adverse events (n = 17, 70.8%) including readmission, surgical complications and mortality. Patient reported outcomes, including satisfaction, were evaluated infrequently (n = 3, 12.5%). All studies reported a positive impact. No study reported how the design of the ICP was informed by published literature or other methods
Citation: Lee KS, Yordanov S, Stubbs D, Edlmann E, Joannides A, Davies B (2021) Integrated care pathways in neurosurgery: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 16(8): e0255628. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255628
Editor: Ehab Farag, Cleveland Clinic, UNITED STATES
Received: March 13, 2021; Accepted: July 20, 2021; Published: August 2, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Integrated care pathways (ICPs) are a pre-defined framework of evidence based, multidisciplinary practice for specific patients. They aim to ensure patients move more effectively through a clinical experience [1]. lCPs outline care processes for the management of a specific condition [2]. As such they can define the patient’s journey through a bounded health system and may, in certain disciplines, transcend organisational boundaries. Their overall aim is to ensure delivery of timely and efficient care to maximise patient outcomes. ICP can thus seamlessly integrate evidence-based practice into day-to-day care, whilst providing a framework for ongoing clinical audit. Process steps within an ICP may be incorporated for other reasons including to mitigate points of system risk and ensure continuity of care, patient safety and satisfaction, efficiency gains, teamwork, and staff education [3–5].
ICPs are therefore best suited, to well defined patient populations with common and consistent care requirements [6, 7]. A well-known example driven by clear national guidance is the care framework for patients with a fractured neck of femur. Local adoption of such processes has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality as well as hospital length of stay [8, 9]. Due to the success of such initiatives, national reporting infrastructures such as the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) have been created to enable ongoing audit and facilitate payment of a best-practice-tariff [10]. Despite the impact of this framework its development was not reached in a systematic way but an increasing body of literature advocates for the coordinated design and engineering of healthcare systems in order to minimise risk and improve outcomes, with such a ‘systems approach’ endorsed by various medical royal colleges [11–13].
Aims and objectives
The overarching aim of this study is to identify how ICPs have been employed in neurosurgery for patients of any age. In so doing we will identify:
- The areas of neurosurgical practice where ICPs have been adopted
- To identify the impact of ICPs in published studies and the criteria by which this is judged
- Identify how ICPs were developed
- Identify common themes across ICPs that may be related to successful ICP adoption.
To the best of our knowledge this is the first systematic review to aggregate published data on ICPs for neurosurgical diseases.
Methods
This review was conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (S1 Checklist) [14]. PROSPERO registration was obtained (registration number CRD42020199650).
Search strategy
A search string was developed to identify original research studies reporting ICPs in neurosurgery (see S1 Table). The following databases were searched on the 20th July 2020: Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).
Definition of ICP
The medical literature is inconsistent over the core or minimum features of an ICP. Multiple synonyms–clinical pathways, critical pathways, care maps, care protocols, and multidisciplinary plans–have been used [15]. One review identified 84 different definitions for ICPs in a Medline search between 2000 and 2003 [15].
For the purposes of this systematic review, an ICP was defined in accordance with the definition developed by the European Pathway Association (EPA) [6]. This definition has been used in other reviews of ICPs [16, 17]. From this definition, key characteristics of an ICP must include:
- 1. An explicit statement of the goals and key elements of care based on evidence, best practice and patient expectations.
And should include:
- 2. The facilitation of communication, coordination of roles, and sequencing of activities of the multidisciplinary care team, patients and their relatives.
Whilst enabling:
- 3. The documentation, monitoring, and evaluation of variances and outcomes.
- 4. The identification of the appropriate resources.
Study selection
All titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers (KSL and SY) against a set of pre-defined eligibility criteria (S2 Table). Potentially eligible studies were selected for full-text analysis. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or appeal to a third senior reviewer (BD). Agreement among the reviewers on study inclusion was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa [18].
All original studies reporting the details of the ICPs and outcomes of patients with any neurosurgical disease were included in our systematic review. Case series were included. Studies of small sample sizes were included per recommendations by the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and in accordance with methodologies of previously published meta-analyses [19–21]. Other exclusion criteria included non-English articles, non-original research papers, laboratory-based and epidemiological studies, and non-human research subjects as these were deemed to not provide relevant information needed in this paper (see S2 Table). If data from the same patient population was published several times or overlaps in more than one article from the same institution, the publication that reported the largest sample size data was selected.
Risk of bias assessment.
The quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for non-randomised experimental studies [22]. Full details are in S3 Table (S3 Table). In summary, these tools rated the quality of selection, measurement and comparability for all studies and gave a score for experimental studies (maximum of 9) and case series (maximum of 10). Two researchers (KSL and SY) assessed the quality of all included studies and discussed discrepancies until consensus was reached.
Results
Characteristics and quality of included studies
Number of articles screened and selected for inclusion are shown in Fig 1. Using the designated search terms, a total of 1769 unique articles were identified and 24 were included in the final dataset [23–46]. Reliability of study selection between observers was substantial at both the title and abstract screening stage (Cohen’s κ = 0.79) and the full-text review stage (Cohen’s κ = 0.87) [18].
The characteristics of the studies are shown in Table 1. Thirteen studies were from the United States (US), five from the United Kingdom (UK), and one each from China, Korea, Italy France, Netherlands and Switzerland. Sub-specialities represented in these studies included skull base, neurovascular, neuro-oncology, and spinal neurosurgery. These are shown graphically in Fig 2.
All studies were non-randomised. We included 13 cohort studies with a control group and 11 case series without a control group. All 13 cohort studies [23–35], attained a score of 9 out of 11 on the JBI checklist for cohort studies (see S3 Table), whilst 10 of the 11 case series [36–46], attained a full score of 10 on the JBI checklist for case series, with one study scoring 8 (S4 Table). We observed that the majority of the primary studies (18 of 24 (75%)) included were published from year 2010 onwards. Fig 3 illustrates this trend, with a rise in cohort studies (comparator design) and case series (no comparator) published.
Elements of ICP
Eligible participants for inclusion in this systematic review were patients in secondary and tertiary care settings which includes the coordination and continuity of healthcare as patients transfer between different locations or different levels of care.
A total of 8128 patients (median number of participants per study: 125, 17–3693) were included and 6345 were exposed to the ICP. Of these, mean ages ranged from 42 to 75.9±7.4 years. The interventions had been developed locally for a range of purposes, in either hospital secondary or tertiary settings: improving service coordination, increasing service efficiency, supporting practice change, improving patient outcomes, ensuring adherence to best practice guidelines. Most had been implemented in order to achieve multiple aims (Table 2). The ICPs were considered a complex intervention [47–49], as they comprise a number of separate essential elements. None of the studies included in the review were underpinned by explicit theories of ICPs’ active ingredients or their generative effects. Moreover, the information provided on ICP development and implementation processes was varied and in no case was any evidence provided for the selection of any ICP component of the intervention to be assessed. In several cases it was possible to make inferences about authors’ implicit assumptions. Only 10 of the 25 ICPs were presented in detail as a flow diagram figure. The interventions described by the studies in the review varied in terms of their key components which we summarise in Table 3, using the definition developed by the European Pathway Association (EPA) [6]. Hence, we were also unable to meet our objectives of defining ‘active ingredients’ (setting, context, and population) for ICPs to be successful or factors contributing to the ineffectiveness of ICPs.
Outcome measures
We identified an extensive range of outcomes (Table 2). These outcome measures were considered and categorised into three main areas: those relating to the patient, those relating to personnel working experience and finally those relating to system.
The most frequently measured patient outcomes were complications (n = 9), readmission rates (n = 5), discharge destinations (n = 5) need for medication/devices/social services (n = 4), mortality (n = 3), patient satisfaction (n = 3), functional outcomes (n = 3), return to independence (n = 3), duration of surgery (n = 3). Patient satisfaction was measured subjectively via phone survey (n = 3). Other reported patient outcomes included need for repeat surgery (n = 2), morbidity (n = 2) and patient/family education (n = 1). Professional outcomes such as team satisfaction and communication were not reported in the included studies. Length of stay (LOS) (n = 11) was the most commonly used indicator for system level outcomes. Other system level indicators reported were timeliness/avoidable delays to care or assessment (n = 4), costs (n = 3), and finally pathway compliance and variance (n = 2)
Subspecialties
CSF diversion.
Three studies reported the function of ICP related to CSF flow pathologies, although relating to different parts of the patient journey [28, 36, 39]. Two were case series without a control group [36, 39], and one was a cohort study [28].
Two studies used ICPs in the setting of suspected shunt malformation. Akhunbay-Fudge et al. evaluated the use of an assessment pathway utilising a digital retinal camera system to assess for papilloedema remotely but reported no outcome measures [36]. Chern et al. designed a cohort study to evaluate the fast track preoperative protocol where eligible patients at risk of shunt failures entered the ICP for further workup [28]. The ICP was compared with preprotocol periods as control.
Outcome metrics to evaluate its effectiveness included admission rate, LOS, need for repeat shunt surgery, and timeliness.
Allali et al. determined the feasibility of a protocol using cognitive and gait quantification to identify normal pressure hydrocephalus in elderly patients, distinguishing it from its mimics such as Parkinson’s disease or vascular dementia [39].
Functional.
The use of ICP in functional neurosurgery was reported in one case series.
Cohen et al. evaluated the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation model for Parkinson’s disease patients who had undergone DBS. Outcome was assessed using ‘return to independence’ as judged by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores [41].
Neuro-oncology.
Wang et al. established a neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme in a Chinese tertiary care medical centre, for patients undergoing elective craniotomy for primary brain tumours [35]. This ERAS protocol appeared to have significant benefits over its comparator–conventional perioperative management. Outcome measures were adverse events (30 day readmission rates, both surgical and non-surgical complications, LOS, morbidity, mortality), functional recovery and patient satisfaction.
Neurovascular.
Two cohort studies reported the function of ICP related to neurovascular surgery [24, 33]. Bapat and colleagues, together with a multidisciplinary team of neurosurgeons, neuroanaesthetists and rehabilitation therapists developed a ICP for elderly patients with chronic subdural haemorrhage (CSDH), to enhance preoperative optimisation and reduce time to surgery [24]. Outcome metric assessed and reported were adverse events (LOS, complications, mortality, recurrence), discharge destinations, timing of surgery, use of anticoagulant of antiplatelet agents.
Pritchard et al. assessed the cost effectiveness of an enhanced Specialist Liaison Nurse (SLN) service which sought to reduce dysfunctional psychosocial stress in sufferers of aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) [33]. The only outcome measure was cost effectiveness.
Paediatric.
The use of ICP function neurosurgery was reported in one case series,4 and one cohort study [31].
Aldana and colleagues set up a comprehensive multidisciplinary clinic to better assess spinal defects such as meningocoele, myelocystocoele spina bifida occulta syringomyelia amongst many others [38]. Outcome measures were parents’ knowledge of child’s medical condition, care plans, need for medical and prosthetic devices, reduction in physician and allied health care contacts, and transportation costs.
Kurlander et al. performed a cohort study to assess quality improvement blood conservation protocol for craniosynostosis [31]. It resulted in a 66% transfusion-free rate at time of discharge compared to 0% in the group without any conservation protocol.
Skull base.
Two cohort studies reported the function of ICP related to postoperative management following transsphenoidal surgery for sellar lesions [25, 27].
Common outcome measures reported in these skull base studies were readmission, surgical and endocrinological complications, LOS, postoperative inpatient sodium levels, and need for preoperative or postoperative hydrocortisone.
Spine.
Ten studies reported the function of ICP related to spinal surgeries for lumbar pathologies or adult scoliosis [23, 29, 32, 34, 40, 42–46]. Four involved a control group whereas six were case series. The specific interventions regarding the pathways described in the included studies showed considerable variation. The studies mainly focused on ICPs for surgical care or perioperative phase in order to guide surgical management and reduce its delay, whilst one study investigated pain management.
Common outcome measures reported complications, ICU admission, delays to assessment MRI report, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, LOS, costs, return to dependence and ADL, patient satisfaction (assessed by phone survey), destination after discharge, ICP compliance and variance pattern.
Trauma.
Jin et al. introduced a streamlined workflow concept that included direct computed tomography (CT) scanning in the trauma room in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) [30]. The cohort study measured TBI related mortality and functional outcomes.
Discussion
Summary of findings
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to identify and assess ICPs for neurosurgical diseases. Twenty-four original articles were identified across a range of neurosurgical pathologies and settings. All ICP were based on a single centre experience and 13 of 24 compared practice before and after adoption, to evaluate added benefit. Few studies utilised patient perspective in their evaluation, preferring often isolated performance metrics such as length of hospitalisation. Approaches to the design and iteration of ICPs upon implementation were not reported.
ICPs can work in neurosurgical practice
ICPs are considered a road map for care, which rely on multi-disciplinary involvement such as doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, and other healthcare professionals. ICPs aim to improve quality and efficiency. They have been adopted in a variety of health care specialties and settings often with positive results, as seen in orthopaedics [3–5, 8].
ICPs are therefore likely to benefit Neurosurgery given its requirements for multi-disciplinary cooperation both within a tertiary centre but also across a region. The examples identified in this review indicate their relevance and value across sub-specialities of Neurosurgery, for example to ensure patients receive relevant clinical assessments or interventions in a timely and efficient fashion, to reduce variation in practice or readmissions, and improve length of stay and patient satisfaction. Reassuringly this review also demonstrate clinicians are increasingly engaged in initiatives to improve the delivery of care through the redesign of existing services [3–5, 50], including the use of ICPs as seen in Fig 3.
However, there were notable omissions both in the design and evaluation of identified studies. For example, the identified ICP focus on service delivery by the tertiary centre, and do not incorporate regional care pathways, which will be relevant in the delivery of an emergency tertiary service for example. Furthermore, there is an underrepresentation of the patient voice in these included studies. We identified surprisingly little evidence regarding the impact of ICPs on patient experiences of services, beyond measures of reported patient satisfaction. Measurement of patient satisfaction were limited only to phone surveys which may be highly subjected to detection bias. Outcome measures such as LOS may be effective surrogates, but any such use should follow their validation.
Future neurosurgical ICPs should consider the growing methodological literature around their design and evaluation
As highly complex interventions, ICP challenge linkage of particular elements of initiatives to effects [47–49], and these aforementioned omissions limit the thorough evaluation of reported ICPs, and potentially their wider adoption.
Process evaluation of ICPs is complex and requires a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to inform policy and practice [51]. Whilst RCTs are considered a gold-standard, their delivery in this setting is more difficult as interventions are often multifaceted and harder to separate between arms [52]. Variants including cluster randomised or step-wedge trials are potential alternatives [53]. The UK Medical Research Council guidance [47–49], outlines that evaluation requires good working relationships with all stakeholders involved in ICP development. Problems that are identified during implementation can be adjusted, as per a quality improvement process, but not at the point at which the ICP is being evaluated [54]. Active correction is therefore more appropriate at the development or feasibility trial stage [55]. The MRC recommendations also include the development and evaluation of for complex interventions through iterative phases, to ensure the relevance of each intervention [47–49]. An ICP should therefore be a work in progress that can be further improved on through repeated quality improvement cycles [56]. The use of pre-specified targets and timepoints for evaluation, including a control group for comparison, may allow a team to know if the project goals have been achieved and consider what interventions to retain, improve, or discard in future cycles of ICP development [57–59].
Reflecting on the data omissions in this review and the implications for study interpretation, a reporting framework would be of benefit [60, 61]. Table 3 outlines a proposed checklist for Neurosurgical ICPs regarding its implementation, reporting and delivery based on wider experience and findings in this review [16, 17]. This checklist is intentionally generic, representing a minimum set of critically important outcomes to report in all studies evaluating the introduction and evaluation of ICPs and should not restrict investigators in their reporting of additional relevant outcomes. In future, this could be further refined by a Delphi consensus of various stakeholders–neurosurgeons, radiologists, oncologists, nurses, allied healthcare professionals, health-economists.
Strengths and limitations of the review
This review employed a pre-specified, registered protocol and variations to the protocol have been explicitly stated. The literature search was comprehensive, identifying relevant studies from three databases, and the reporting of this review follows PRISMA guidelines [14].
Limitations of this review are that we were only able to include publications written in English, due to resource constraints. However, international publications were included which may reduce selection bias. We also acknowledge a potential issue of publication bias, with studies reporting fewer positive outcomes almost certainly underrepresented in the review. Further well established ICPs such as the metastatic cord compression and head injury pathways, published by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were not identified using the literature database searches [62, 63]. NICE pathways are not indexed on the academic databases we searched as their recommendations are generally formed using expert consensus based on available evidence, and adoption or effectiveness not routinely evaluated in scientific papers. An awareness that national ICPs exist supports but would not have changed the result of this SR. We highlight the challenges inherent when defining models of integrated care, given the lack of agreed definition and clear boundaries to the term. This limitation may have resulted relevant work being excluded from this review. During the selection of studies, it was particularly challenging to discern between new models of care that are ‘integrated’ from those that are not, as numerous terms were used interchangeably to describe the management of clinical care processes within the literature. However, rigorous and blinded screening, together with consensus discussion helps to mitigate this issue.
Conclusion
ICPs in Neurosurgery have been developed and may have a beneficial role in neurosurgical care. However, examples so far are limited to single institutions, have an uncertain development process and longer-term legacy, whilst appear to lack patient perspective both in design and evaluation. This limits firm conclusions on its effectiveness. Moreover, evaluation has used an audit change cycle, precluding evaluation of single measures (if complex interventions) and open to performance bias. Experiences from parallel fields, suggest these areas must be overcomed, to ensure a generalisable and sustainable ICP. Their development and generalisation would benefit from a reporting framework and accordingly, a checklist for ICPs regarding its implementation, reporting and delivery has also been proposed.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Full search phrases used for the three respective databases.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255628.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select studies for the review.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255628.s003
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment checklist for cohort studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255628.s004
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment checklist for case series.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255628.s005
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Bohmer RM. The Hard Work of Health Care Transformation. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):709–11. pmid:27557297
- 2.
Johnson S. What is a pathway of care?: Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997.
- 3. Riley K. Care pathways. Paving the way. Health Serv J. 1998;108(5597):30–1. pmid:10177611
- 4. Trebble TM, Hansi N, Hydes T, Smith MA, Baker M. Process mapping the patient journey: an introduction. BMJ. 2010;341:c4078. pmid:20709715
- 5. Rotter T, Kinsman L, James E, Machotta A, Gothe H, Willis J, et al. Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(3):CD006632. pmid:20238347
- 6. Association EP. Care pathways 2006 [Available from: http://e-p-a.org/care-pathways/.
- 7. Campbell H, Hotchkiss R, Bradshaw N, Porteous M. Integrated care pathways. BMJ. 1998;316(7125):133–7. pmid:9462322
- 8. Beaupre LA, Cinats JG, Senthilselvan A, Lier D, Jones CA, Scharfenberger A, et al. Reduced morbidity for elderly patients with a hip fracture after implementation of a perioperative evidence-based clinical pathway. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(5):375–9. pmid:17074877
- 9. Mastellos N, Gunn L, Harris M, Majeed A, Car J, Pappas Y. Assessing patients’ experience of integrated care: a survey of patient views in the North West London Integrated Care Pilot. Int J Integr Care. 2014;14:e015. pmid:24987321
- 10. Johansen A, Boulton C, Hertz K, Ellis M, Burgon V, Rai S, et al. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD)—Using a national clinical audit to raise standards of nursing care. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs. 2017;26:3–6. pmid:28237620
- 11. Engineering RAo. Engineering better care: a systems approach to health and care design and continuous improvement 2017 [Available from: https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/engineering-better-care.
- 12. System CoEatHC, Engineering IoMaNAo. Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/ Health Care Partnership2005.
- 13. America IoMUCoQoHCi. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. 2000.
- 14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. pmid:19621072
- 15. De Bleser L, Depreitere R, De Waele K, Vanhaecht K, Vlayen J, Sermeus W. Defining pathways. J Nurs Manag. 2006;14(7):553–63. pmid:17004966
- 16. Allen D, Gillen E, Rixson L. The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review. JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80–129. pmid:27820426
- 17. Allen D, Gillen E, Rixson L. Systematic review of the effectiveness of integrated care pathways: what works, for whom, in which circumstances? Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7(2):61–74. pmid:21631848
- 18. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960; 20(1): 37–47.
- 19. Saad AF, Rahman M, Maybauer DM, Fraser JF, Costantine MM, Pacheco LD, et al. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Pregnant and Postpartum Women With H1N1-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(2):241–7. pmid:26942349
- 20. Grainge M. Excluding small studies from a systematic review or meta-analysis. Presented at: CSG Annual Meeting 2015; March 12–18, 2015; Dresden, Germany. https://skin.cochrane.org/sites/skin.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/CSG-COUSIN_March%202015_M%20Grainge.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2020.
- 21. Zhang JJY, Lee KS, Ang LW, Leo YS, Young BE. Risk Factors of Severe Disease and Efficacy of Treatment in Patients Infected with COVID-19: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. pmid:32407459
- 22. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. Journal of evidence-based medicine. 2015;8(1):2–10. pmid:25594108
- 23. Adogwa O, Elsamadicy AA, Sergesketter AR, Ongele M, Vuong V, Khalid S, et al. Interdisciplinary Care Model Independently Decreases Use of Critical Care Services After Corrective Surgery for Adult Degenerative Scoliosis. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e845–e9. pmid:29317368
- 24. Bapat S, Shapey J, Toma A, Platt L, Luoma AMV. Chronic subdural haematomas: a single-centre experience developing an integrated care pathway. Br J Neurosurg. 2017;31(4):434–8. pmid:28264594
- 25. Bohl MA, Ahmad S, White WL, Little AS. Implementation of a Postoperative Outpatient Care Pathway for Delayed Hyponatremia Following Transsphenoidal Surgery. Neurosurgery. 2018;82(1):110–7. pmid:28449052
- 26. Brown EG, Josephson SA, Anderson N, Reid M, Lee M, Douglas VC. Evaluation of a multicomponent pathway to address inpatient delirium on a neurosciences ward. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):106. pmid:29433572
- 27. Carminucci AS, Ausiello JC, Page-Wilson G, Lee M, Good L, Bruce JN, et al. Outcome of implementation of a multidisciplinary team approach to the care of patients after transsphenoidal surgery. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(1):36–44. pmid:26437216
- 28. Chern JJ, Macias CG, Jea A, Curry DJ, Luerssen TG, Whitehead WE. Effectiveness of a clinical pathway for patients with cerebrospinal fluid shunt malfunction. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010;6(4):318–24. pmid:20887102
- 29. Chung SB, Lee SH, Kim ES, Eoh W. Implementation and outcomes of a critical pathway for lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;51(6):338–42. pmid:22949962
- 30. Fung Kon Jin PH, Penning N, Joosse P, Hijdra AH, Bouma GJ, Ponsen KJ, et al. The effect of the introduction of the Amsterdam Trauma Workflow Concept on mortality and functional outcome of patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25(8):1003–9. pmid:18699728
- 31. Kurlander DE, Ascha M, Marshall DC, Wang D, Ascha MS, Tripi PA, et al. Impact of multidisciplinary engagement in a quality improvement blood conservation protocol for craniosynostosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020:1–9.
- 32. Namiranian K, Norris EJ, Jolissaint JG, Patel JB, Lombardi CM. Impact of Multidisciplinary Spine Conferences on Surgical Planning and Perioperative Care in Elective Lumbar Spine Surgeries. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(5):854–61. pmid:30213168
- 33. Pritchard C, Foulkes L, Lang DA, Neil-Dwyer G. Cost-benefit analysis of an integrated approach to reduce psychosocial trauma following neurosurgery compared with standard care: two-year prospective comparative study of enhanced specialist liaison nurse service for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (ASAH) patients and carers. Surg Neurol. 2004;62(1):17–27. pmid:15226062
- 34. Sethi R, Buchlak QD, Yanamadala V, Anderson ML, Baldwin EA, Mecklenburg RS, et al. A systematic multidisciplinary initiative for reducing the risk of complications in adult scoliosis surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26(6):744–50. pmid:28362214
- 35. Wang Y, Liu B, Zhao T, Zhao B, Yu D, Jiang X, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for elective craniotomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg. 2018:1–12. pmid:29932379
- 36. Akhunbay-Fudge C, Evans F, Long V, Chumas P, Corns R, Sheikh A. Integrated fundal assessment pathway for patients with suspected shunt malfunction via digital retinal images. Br J Neurosurg. 2019:1–4. pmid:31645135
- 37. Akins PT, Banerjee A, Guppy K, Silverthorn J, Fitzgibbon J, Nandan Y, et al. A 10-Year Analysis of 3693 Craniotomies during a Transition to Multidisciplinary Teams, Protocols, and Pathways. Perm J. 2019;23.
- 38. Aldana PR, Wood DL, Postlethwait RA, James HE. Initiating, developing and evaluating a comprehensive spinal defects clinic: a clinical report. Pediatr Neurosurg. 2010;46(5):329–34. pmid:21346394
- 39. Allali G, Laidet M, Armand S, Momjian S, Marques B, Saj A, et al. A combined cognitive and gait quantification to identify normal pressure hydrocephalus from its mimics: The Geneva’s protocol. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;160:5–11. pmid:28605723
- 40. Buell KG, Sivasubramaniyam S, Sykes M, Zafar K, Bingham L, Mitra A. Expediting the management of cauda equina syndrome in the emergency department through clinical pathway design. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(4):e000597. pmid:31799444
- 41. Cohen DB, Oh MY, Baser SM, Angle C, Whiting A, Birk C, et al. Fast-track programming and rehabilitation model: a novel approach to postoperative deep brain stimulation patient care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88(10):1320–4. pmid:17908576
- 42. Debono B, Sabatier P, Garnault V, Hamel O, Bousquet P, Lescure JP, et al. Outpatient Lumbar Microdiscectomy in France: From an Economic Imperative to a Clinical Standard-An Observational Study of 201 Cases. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:891–7. pmid:28735120
- 43. Giorgi PD, Villa F, Gallazzi E, Debernardi A, Schirò GR, Crisà FM, et al. The management of emergency spinal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(6):671–6. pmid:32323563
- 44. Playford ED, Sachs R, Thompson AJ. Integrated care pathways: outcome from inpatient rehabilitation following nontraumatic spinal cord lesion. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(3):269–75. pmid:12017514
- 45. Scanlon J, Richards B. Development of a same day laminectomy program. J Perianesth Nurs. 2004;19(2):84–8. pmid:15069647
- 46. Soffin EM, Wetmore DS, Barber LA, Vaishnav AS, Beckman JD, Albert TJ, et al. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway: association with rapid discharge and minimal complications after anterior cervical spine surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46(4):E9. pmid:30933926
- 47. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655. pmid:18824488
- 48. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. pmid:25791983
- 49. De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, Asher L, Chowdhary N, Lund C, et al. Theory of Change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council’s framework for complex interventions. Trials. 2014;15:267. pmid:24996765
- 50. McLaughlin N, Rodstein J, Burke MA, Martin NA. Demystifying process mapping: a key step in neurosurgical quality improvement initiatives. Neurosurgery. 2014;75(2):99–109; discussion pmid:24681644
- 51. Waters E, Hall BJ, Armstrong R, Doyle J, Pettman TL, de Silva-Sanigorski A. Essential components of public health evidence reviews: capturing intervention complexity, implementation, economics and equity. J Public Health (Oxf). 2011;33(3):462–5. pmid:21859880
- 52. Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JA, Burney PG, Donner A. Methods in health service research. Evaluation of health interventions at area and organisation level. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):376–9. pmid:10435968
- 53. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T, Gold L. Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(9):788–93. pmid:15310806
- 54. Audrey S, Holliday J, Parry-Langdon N, Campbell R. Meeting the challenges of implementing process evaluation within randomized controlled trials: the example of ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial). Health Educ Res. 2006;21(3):366–77. pmid:16740670
- 55. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12. pmid:19782876
- 56. Portela MC, Pronovost PJ, Woodcock T, Carter P, Dixon-Woods M. How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(5):325–36. pmid:25810415
- 57. Eccles M, Steen N, Grimshaw J, Thomas L, McNamee P, Soutter J, et al. Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357(9266):1406–9. pmid:11356439
- 58. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259. pmid:22696318
- 59. Gholve PA, Kosygan KP, Sturdee SW, Faraj AA. Multidisciplinary integrated care pathway for fractured neck of femur. A prospective trial with improved outcome. Injury. 2005;36(1):93–8; discussion 9. pmid:15589925
- 60. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257–66. pmid:24411650
- 61. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Clarke M, Devane D, Gargon E, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132. pmid:22867278
- 62. Excellence NIfHaC. Metastatic spinal cord compression in adults: risk assessment, diagnosis and management 2008 [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg75. pmid:18586305
- 63. Excellence NIfHaC. Head injury: assessment and early management 2014 [Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg176/chapter/1-recommendations.