Conectar
To describe the implementation determinants for care coordination interventions in a hospital context.
Systematic review.
This review was guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR), assessed for quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and reported with the PRISMA guidelines.
CINHAL Complete, EMBASE, MEDLINE Complete, PsychINFO (between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022, and updated May 09, 2024) and a manual reference list search of all included studies.
The search returned 5614 articles after duplicates were removed. After title and abstract screening, 264 articles underwent full-text review. Sixteen studies (15 care coordination models) met the inclusion criteria. The CFIR inner setting domain and the implementation process domain were the most prominent domains and ‘Partnerships & Connections’, ‘Work Infrastructure’, ‘Capability’ and ‘Reflecting and Evaluating’ subdomains emerged as important determinants across the included studies.
Inconsistent findings relating to care coordination outcomes are likely to be substantially influenced by the complexity and heterogeneity of the interventions and variations in implementation and contextual factors. Intra- and inter-organisational relationships were important to connect previously disconnected parts of the health system and were facilitated by experienced care coordinators. Continual improvement was also important to increase fit with contextual factors. More high-quality studies are needed to identify commonalities and provide generalisable principles and characteristics associated with high-performance implementation.
Review findings will provide practitioners, policymakers, and researchers with a comprehensive synthesis of evidence underpinning implementation of effective community care coordination from hospital settings.
These review findings will inform the effective implementation of care coordination interventions in a hospital context for patients with complex multimorbidity.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis.
PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022376642.
No patient or public Contribution.
The aim of this integrative review is to critically appraise and synthesise empirical evidence on the clinical applications, outcomes, and implications of generative artificial intelligence in nursing practice.
Integrative review following Whittemore and Knafl's five-stage framework.
Systematic searches were performed for peer-reviewed articles and book chapters published between 1 January 2018 and 30 June 2025. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria focused on generative artificial intelligence tools embedded in nursing clinical workflow (excluding nursing education-only applications). Data were extracted into a standardised matrix and appraised for quality using design-appropriate checklists. Guided by Whittemore and Knafl's integrative review framework, a constant comparative analysis was applied to derive the main themes and subthemes.
CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase.
Included literature was a representative mix of single-group quality improvement pilots, mixed-method usability and feasibility studies, randomised controlled trials, qualitative descriptive and phenomenological studies, as well as preliminary and proof-of-concept observational research. Four overarching themes emerged: (1) Workflow Integration and Efficiency, (2) AI-Augmented Clinical Reasoning, (3) Patient-Facing Communication and Education, and (4) Role Boundaries, Ethics and Trust.
Generative artificial intelligence holds promise for enhancing nursing efficiency, supporting clinical decision making, and extending patient communication. However, consistent human validation, ethical boundary setting, and more rigorous, longitudinal outcome and equity evaluations are essential before widespread clinical adoption.
Although generative artificial intelligence could reduce nurses' documentation workload and routine decision-making burden, these gains cannot be assumed. Safe and effective integration will require rigorous nurse training, robust governance, transparent labelling of AI-generated content, and ongoing evaluation of both clinical outcomes and equity impacts. Without these safeguards, generative artificial intelligence risks introducing new errors and undermining patient safety and trust.
PRISMA 2020.
To investigate the effects of active involvement of family caregivers in adult in-hospital care on patients' readmissions, complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, quality of life, psychological distress and activities of daily living, as well as on the satisfaction of patients, HCPs and family caregivers.
Systematic review.
Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, Cochrane Library (from inception to February 2024).
The PRISMA 2020 statement was followed. Prospective controlled studies focusing on active involvement of family caregivers in adult in-hospital care were included. Two independent teams of authors conducted study selection, quality assessment and data extraction.
Thirteen studies were included, comprising 11 randomised controlled trials. The clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. Six of these studies were performed in stroke patients. Some studies reported statistically significant benefits of active family involvement on readmission rates, hospital LOS, ADL, psychological distress for patients and family members, QoL and satisfaction of family caregivers. However, others did not observe differences in these outcomes. For complication rates, mortality and satisfaction of patients and HCPs, no studies demonstrated significant differences between groups.
Further research is needed to provide a conclusive answer as to whether active family caregiver involvement improves outcomes of adult hospitalised patients.
Despite the inconclusive findings of this review, advocating for active involvement of family caregivers in adult in-hospital care fits the perspective of patient- and family-centred care.
As the care of hospitalised adults is shifting to a more family-centric approach, investigating the effects of an active role of family caregivers in adult in-hospital care is necessary. However, the small number of studies available and heterogeneity between studies included in this review hamper firm conclusions. Further evaluations through well-designed studies are required.
FreshRSS