RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: New digital technology presents new challenges to health care on multiple levels. There are calls for further research that considers the complex factors related to digital innovations in complex health care settings to bridge the gap when moving from linear, logistic research to embracing and testing the concept of complexity. The nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to help study complexity in digital innovations. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the role of complexity in the development and deployment of innovations by retrospectively assessing challenges to 4 digital health care innovations initiated from the bottom up. METHODS: A multicase retrospective, deductive, and explorative analysis using the NASSS complexity assessment tool LONG was conducted. In total, 4 bottom-up innovations developed in Region Västra Götaland in Sweden were explored and compared to identify unique and shared complexity-related challenges. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in joint insights and individual learning. Overall, the complexity was mostly found outside the actual innovation; more specifically, it related to the organization's readiness to integrate new innovations, how to manage and maintain innovations, and how to finance them. The NASSS framework sheds light on various perspectives that can either facilitate or hinder the adoption, scale-up, and spread of technological innovations. In the domain of condition or diagnosis, a well-informed understanding of the complexity related to the condition or illness (diabetes, cancer, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia disorders) is of great importance for the innovation. The value proposition needs to be clearly described early to enable an understanding of costs and outcomes. The questions in the NASSS complexity assessment tool LONG were sometimes difficult to comprehend, not only from a language perspective but also due to a lack of understanding of the surrounding organization's system and its setting. CONCLUSIONS: Even when bottom-up innovations arise within the same support organization, the complexity can vary based on the developmental phase and the unique characteristics of each project. Identifying, defining, and understanding complexity may not solve the issues but substantially improves the prospects for successful deployment. Successful innovation within complex organizations necessitates an adaptive leadership and structures to surmount cultural resistance and organizational impediments. A rigid, linear, and stepwise approach risks disregarding interconnected variables and dependencies, leading to suboptimal outcomes. Success lies in embracing the complexity with its uncertainty, nurturing creativity, and adopting a nonlinear methodology that accommodates the iterative nature of innovation processes within complex organizations.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recognizing the need for palliative care (PC) and referral to PC teams improves patients' quality of life. However, in patients with moderate/severe clinical complexity, early recognition of the need for PC may not correspond to referral to specialized PC services. The definition for clinical complexity is still underexplored, as well as the instruments available to assess complexity. This scoping review aims to gather relevant information on the definition of clinical complexity in PC, as well as on the instruments used to objectively assess complexity. METHODS: According to the methodology of a Scoping Review, the keywords: "palliative care", "hospitalization criteria", "complexity criteria", "complexity assessment" and "clinical complexity", were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and b-on databases, during April 2022, for relevant information on the definition and/or approach and/or protocols related to clinical complexity in patients followed in PC, or on the instruments used to assess it, regardless of study design, the language, or year of publication. RESULTS: From the 626 references found, 15 studies were included in the review. According to these studies, complexity may be organized/defined into 3, 4, or 6 domains, generally including the patient, the family, the health system, and the socio-cultural context. Of the 13 instruments mentioned for the objective assessment of complexity, the HexCom, IDC-Pal, and the recent ID-PALL seem to offer the broadest determinations of complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Complexity is a dynamic process, which reflects the reality of patients and families, and patients, families, and health professionals' perceptions, and so it must be systematically adjusted to the stage of the disease. The definition of complexity and the development and use of suitable instruments can help to identify, assess, and improve patients' quality of life, while supporting their family across the grieving process. Yet, this may not always be summarized in a quantitative value by easy-to-use instruments, highlighting the role of PC interdisciplinary teams.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS: To develop an evidence-based, valid and reliable assessment tool that educational establishments and dental practitioners may use to assess the complexity of root canal treatment (RCT) utilizing digital advancements. The study also aimed to provide a more objective definition of the term 'uncomplicated' root canal treatment as described by the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) and the European Society of Endodontology (ESE) undergraduate curriculum guidelines for Endodontology. METHODOLOGY: The development process involved a narrative review of the literature to identify the complexity factors associated with root canal treatment on permanent teeth; an iterative development and analysis process to assess the weighting of these factors; and the programming of digital software to enhance the efficiency and user interface of the assessment form. Validation of the tool was sought with a panel of 35 specialist endodontists to assess clinical scenarios and assess the consensus inter-examiner agreement with the outcomes provided by the E-CAT. The inter-user and intra-user reliability studies were conducted with 15 dentists to evaluate the same clinical cases and by repeating the experiment 9 months later. The ease of use of the form was also assessed. RESULTS: The E-CAT was successfully developed with a total of 19 complexity criteria and hosted on a secure server under the domain of www.e-cat.uk. The tool provides a smart interactive filtering mechanism and automatic background calculation of the risk scores. Three levels of complexity were defined: class I (uncomplicated), class II (moderately complicated) and class III (highly complicated). The consensus of the panel of endodontists had excellent agreement with the outcome of the E-CAT. The inter-user and intra-user reliability was found to be 0.80 and 0.90, respectively. The average time to assess a case was 1:36 min. CONCLUSION: The E-CAT gave promising results providing an efficient and reliable platform to assess the complexity of cases undergoing root canal treatments. The study design allowed the formulation of a more objective definition to describe 'uncomplicated' root canal treatment as referred to by the ESE and ADEE guidelines. This study is advantageous for educational, public health and referral pathways.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recent years have witnessed a remarkable evolution of clear aligner technology and clear aligners are becoming more and more versatile in treating orthodontic patients. The aim of this study was to develop an objective evaluation system for assessing clear aligner treatment difficulty. METHODS: A total of 120 eligible patients (100 patients for developing and testing the evaluation system and 20 patients for validating this system) were recruited in this retrospective cross-sectional study. Based on clinical data (dental models, radiographs and photographs), complexity levels of cases were evaluated by two experts and regarded as the gold standard. Difficulty scores were determined through an evaluation system encompassing three domains (dental model analysis, radiographic examinations and clinical examinations). The reliability of the evaluation system was examined through analyzing the agreement between complexity levels and difficulty scores. Moreover, multivariable linear regression test was used to examine the independent association of each variable (e.g. overbite and crowding) with the complexity level. RESULTS: The results revealed that the assessment of treatment difficulty by this objective evaluation system substantially matched the gold standard (R2 = 0.80). The multivariable regression test revealed that complexity level was significantly associated with difficulty score (p < 0.001), age (p = 0.015), tooth extraction (p < 0.001), treatment stage (p < 0.01) and the number of difficult tooth movement (p = 0.005). This objective evaluation system elaborated in this study was viable and reliable in appraising clear-aligner treatment difficulty in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest orthodontists and general practitioners use this objective evaluation system (CAT-CAT) to appraise clear aligner treatment difficulty and to select appropriate clear aligner patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate referral patterns to secondary care and categorise referrals by complexity level. To assess compliance with commissioning guidelines for cases accepted for treatment in secondary care, comparing complexity to Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN) data. DESIGN: Service evaluation of all referrals during study period recorded prospectively. The standard was set that >85% of cases offered treatment in secondary care should be complexity level 3b. SETTING: Seven NHS orthodontic departments within a regional clinical effectiveness group in secondary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients seen as new referrals during the three-month study period. METHODS: Data recorded at clinic appointment on data collection proforma including referral information, complexity, IOTN and outcome of the first appointment. Data were collated on a spreadsheet and simple statistics were applied. RESULTS: A total of 493 patients were included in data analysis. Median waiting time for a new patient appointment was 11.0 weeks. For the whole study group, 53.8% were IOTN 5, 30.8% IOTN 4, 9.7% IOTN 3; complexity levels were 54.2% complexity 3b, 37.1% 3a and 6.7% 2. Of the patients, 30.0% were offered treatment in secondary care at their first attendance; of these, 74.3 % were IOTN 5, 93.2% were complexity level 3b. CONCLUSION: The gold standard has been met in the region as a whole and at each individual unit. There is a large discrepancy between the IOTN score and complexity level in those patients offered orthodontic treatment in secondary care. Routine recording of complexity level is recommended for all patients seen in the secondary care setting.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) has been developed to facilitate detailed assessments of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Worked examples of the tool's application are needed to promote its use and refinement. The aim of this case study was to apply the iCAT_SR to a subset of 20 studies included in a Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people. Methods: Interventions were assessed independently by two authors using the six core iCAT_SR dimensions: (1) 'Target organisational levels/categories'; (2) 'Target behaviour/actions'; (3) 'Active intervention components'; (4) 'Degree of tailoring'; (5) 'Level of skill required by intervention deliverers'; (6) 'Level of skill required by intervention recipients'. Attempts were made to apply four optional dimensions: 'Interaction between intervention components'; 'Context/setting'; 'Recipient/provider factors'; 'Nature of causal pathway'. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. Disagreements were resolved by consensus discussion. The findings are presented narratively. Results: Assessments involving the core iCAT_SR dimensions showed limited consistency in intervention complexity across included studies, even when categorised according to clinical setting. Interventions were delivered across various organisational levels and categories (i.e. healthcare professionals and patients) and typically comprised multiple components. Intermediate skill levels were required by those delivering and receiving the interventions across all studies. A lack of detail in study reports precluded application of the iCAT_SR's optional dimensions. The inter-rater reliability was substantial (Cohen's Kappa = 0.75) Conclusions: This study describes the application of the iCAT_SR to studies included in a Cochrane systematic review. Future intervention studies need to ensure more detailed reporting of interventions, context and the causal pathways underlying intervention effects to allow a more holistic understanding of intervention complexity and facilitate replication in other settings. The experience gained has helped to refine the original guidance document relating to the application of iCAT_SR.