Scott Reeves

Bio: Scott Reeves is an academic researcher from St George's, University of London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Interprofessional education & Health services research. The author has an hindex of 82, co-authored 441 publications receiving 27470 citations. Previous affiliations of Scott Reeves include Queen Mary University of London & Kingston University.

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update)

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The delivery of effective, high-quality patient care is a complex activity. It demands health and social care professionals collaborate in an effective manner. Research continues to suggest that collaboration between these professionals can be problematic. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve interprofessional collaboration and patient care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific education interventions; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 2006 to 2011. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (2006 to 2011), reference lists of all included studies, the proceedings of leading IPE conferences, and websites of IPE organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client or healthcare process outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. For included studies, at least two review authors extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.

Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Poor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can negatively affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to change IPC, compared to no intervention or to an alternate intervention, on one or more of the following primary outcomes: patient satisfaction and/or the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care provided. Secondary outcomes include the degree of IPC achieved. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (2000-2007), MEDLINE (1950-2007) and CINAHL (1982-2007). We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1999 to 2007) and reference lists of the five included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of practice-based IPC interventions that reported changes in objectively-measured or self-reported (by use of a validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and/or health status outcomes and/or healthcare process outcomes and/or measures of IPC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two of the three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. One author extracted data from and assessed risk of bias of included studies, consulting with the other authors when necessary. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in relation to clinical settings, interventions and outcome measures. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria; two studies examined interprofessional rounds, two studies examined interprofessional meetings, and one study examined externally facilitated interprofessional audit. One study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in inpatient medical wards at an acute care hospital showed a positive impact on length of stay and total charges, but another study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in a community hospital telemetry ward found no impact on length of stay. Monthly multidisciplinary team meetings improved prescribing of psychotropic drugs in nursing homes. Videoconferencing compared to audioconferencing multidisciplinary case conferences showed mixed results; there was a decreased number of case conferences per patient and shorter length of treatment, but no differences in occasions of service or the length of the conference. There was also no difference between the groups in the number of communications between health professionals recorded in the notes. Multidisciplinary meetings with an external facilitator, who used strategies to encourage collaborative working, was associated with increased audit activity and reported improvements to care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated review, we found five studies (four new studies) that met the inclusion criteria. The review suggests that practice-based IPC interventions can improve healthcare processes and outcomes, but due to the limitations in terms of the small number of studies, sample sizes, problems with conceptualising and measuring collaboration, and heterogeneity of interventions and settings, it is difficult to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPC and its effectiveness. More rigorous, cluster randomised studies with an explicit focus on IPC and its measurement, are needed to provide better evidence of the impact of practice-based IPC interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These studies should include qualitative methods to provide insight into how the interventions affect collaboration and how improved collaboration contributes to changes in outcomes.

A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9

Abstract: Background and review context: Evidence to support the proposition that learning together will help practitioners and agencies work better together remains limited and thinly spread. This review id...

Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists.

Abstract: Scott T. Reeves, MD, FASE, Kathryn E. Glas, MD, FASE, Holger Eltzschig, MD, Joseph P. Mathew, MD, FASE, David S. Rubenson, MD, FASE, Gregg S. Hartman, MD, and Stanton K. Shernan, MD, FASE, for the Council for Intraoperative Echocardiography of the American Society of Echocardiography, Charleston, South Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Tubingen, Germany; Durham, North Carolina; La Jolla, California; and Lebanon, New Hampshire

Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography.

Abstract: The previous articles (there were 2 before this 1) in this series discussed several methodological approaches commonly used by qualitative researchers in the health professions. This article focuses on another important qualitative methodology: ethnography. It provides background for those who will encounter this methodology in their reading rather than instructions for carrying out such research. Ethnography is the study of social interactions, behaviours, and perceptions that occur within groups, teams, organisations, and communities. Its roots can be traced back to anthropological studies of small, rural (and often remote) societies that were undertaken in the early 1900s, when researchers such as Bronislaw Malinowski and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown participated in these societies over long periods and documented their social arrangements and belief systems. This approach was later adopted by members of the Chicago School of Sociology (for example, Everett Hughes, Robert Park, Louis Wirth) and applied to a variety of urban settings in their studies of social life. The central aim of ethnography is to provide rich, holistic insights into people’s views and actions, as well as the nature (that is, sights, sounds) of the location they inhabit, through the collection of detailed observations and interviews. As Hammersley states, “The task [of ethnographers] is to document the culture, the perspectives and practices, of the people in these settings. The aim is to ‘get inside’ the way each group of people sees the world.”1 Box 1 outlines the key features of ethnographic research. #### Box 1 Key features of ethnographic research2

Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Abstract: The rapid technological developments of the past decade and the changes in echocardiographic practice brought about by these developments have resulted in the need for updated recommendations to the previously published guidelines for cardiac chamber quantification, which was the goal of the joint writing group assembled by the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. This document provides updated normal values for all four cardiac chambers, including three-dimensional echocardiography and myocardial deformation, when possible, on the basis of considerably larger numbers of normal subjects, compiled from multiple databases. In addition, this document attempts to eliminate several minor discrepancies that existed between previously published guidelines.

Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

Abstract: The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.

Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury

Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.