Have We Drawn the Wrong Conclusions About the Value of Care Pathways? Is a Cochrane Review Appropriate? Response to the Commentary Article Published by Kris Vanhaecht et al.

Thomas Rotter*, Leigh Kinsman, Erica James, Andreas Machotta, Jon Willis, Pamela Snow, Joachim Kugler

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

The commentary provided by Vanhaecht et al. from the European Pathways Association (EPA) questions whether conclusions derived from the review of effects of clinical pathways in hospitals are appropriate. They provide some methodological discussion that indicates a poor appreciation of the detailed content of the review as published in the Cochrane Library and a lack of understanding of the methodological requirements for complex interventions of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. In addition, Vanhaecht et al. misrepresent some important points from the review relating to the intervention reviewed. The critical commentary offered by Vanhaecht et al. is a misrepresentation of the process and content of the review and suggests they have not taken the time and effort to thoroughly read and understand this comprehensive review.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-46
JournalEvaluation & the Health Professions
Volume35
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2012

Keywords

  • care pathways
  • conclusions
  • Cochrane review
  • response commentary
  • misrepresentation

Cite this