Adegboyega K. Lawal
University of Saskatchewan
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Adegboyega K. Lawal.
Systematic Reviews | 2014
Adegboyega K. Lawal; Thomas Rotter; Leigh Kinsman; Nazmi Sari; Liz Harrison; Cathy Jeffery; Mareike Kutz; Mohammad F Khan; Rachel Flynn
BackgroundLean is a set of operating philosophies and methods that help create a maximum value for patients by reducing waste and waits. It emphasizes the consideration of the customer’s needs, employee involvement and continuous improvement. Research on the application and implementation of lean principles in health care has been limited.MethodsThis is a protocol for a systematic review, following the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) methodology. The review aims to document, catalogue and synthesize the existing literature on the effects of lean implementation in health care settings especially the potential effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. We have developed a Medline keyword search strategy, and this focused strategy will be translated into other databases. All search strategies will be provided in the review. The method proposed by the Cochrane EPOC group regarding randomized study designs, non-randomised controlled trials controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series will be followed. In addition, we will also include cohort, case–control studies, and relevant non-comparative publications such as case reports. We will categorize and analyse the review findings according to the study design employed, the study quality (low- versus high-quality studies) and the reported types of implementation in the primary studies. We will present the results of studies in a tabular form.DiscussionOverall, the systematic review aims to identify, assess and synthesize the evidence to underpin the implementation of lean activities in health care settings as defined in this protocol. As a result, the review will provide an evidence base for the effectiveness of lean and implementation methodologies reported in health care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014008853
BMC Medicine | 2016
Adegboyega K. Lawal; Thomas Rotter; Leigh Kinsman; Andreas Machotta; Ulrich Ronellenfitsch; Shannon D. Scott; Donna Goodridge; Christopher Plishka; Gary Groot
Clinical pathways (CPWs) are a common component in the quest to improve the quality of health. CPWs are used to reduce variation, improve quality of care, and maximize the outcomes for specific groups of patients. An ongoing challenge is the operationalization of a definition of CPW in healthcare. This may be attributable to both the differences in definition and a lack of conceptualization in the field of clinical pathways. This correspondence article describes a process of refinement of an operational definition for CPW research and proposes an operational definition for the future syntheses of CPWs literature. Following the approach proposed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8(1):31, 2010) and Wieland et al. (Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 17(2):50, 2011), we used a four-stage process to generate a five criteria checklist for the definition of CPWs. We refined the operational definition, through consensus, merging two of the checklist’s criteria, leading to a more inclusive criterion for accommodating CPW studies conducted in various healthcare settings. The following four criteria for CPW operational definition, derived from the refinement process described above, are (1) the intervention was a structured multidisciplinary plan of care; (2) the intervention was used to translate guidelines or evidence into local structures; (3) the intervention detailed the steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other ‘inventory of actions’ (i.e. the intervention had time-frames or criteria-based progression); and (4) the intervention aimed to standardize care for a specific population. An intervention meeting all four criteria was considered to be a CPW. The development of operational definitions for complex interventions is a useful approach to appraise and synthesize evidence for policy development and quality improvement.
Aids Research and Treatment | 2014
Kelechi N. Eguzo; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Cynthia E. Eseigbe; Chisara C. Umezurike
Background. Study examined the determinants of mortality among adult HIV patients in a rural, tertiary hospital in southeastern Nigeria, comparing mortality among various ART regimens. Methods. Retrospective cohort study of 1069 patients on ART between August 2008 and October 2013. Baseline CD4 counts, age, gender, and ART regimen were considered in this study. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival and Cox proportional hazards models to identify multivariate predictors of mortality. Median follow-up period was 24 months (IQR 6–45). Results. 78 (7.3%) patients died with 15.6% lost to followup. Significant independent predictors of mortality include age (>45), sex (male > female), baseline CD4 stage (<200), and ART combination. Adjusted mortality hazard was 3 times higher among patients with CD4 count <200 cells/μL than those with counts >500 (95% CI 1.69–13.59). Patients on Truvada-based first-line regimens were 88% more likely to die than those on Combivir-based first line (95% CI 1.05–3.36), especially those with CD4 count <200 cells/μL. Conclusion. Study showed lower mortality than most studies in Nigeria and Africa, with mortality higher among males and patients with CD4 count <200. Further studies are recommended to further compare treatment outcomes between Combivir- and Truvada-based regimens in resource-limited settings using clinical indicators.
Systematic Reviews | 2016
Christopher Plishka; Thomas Rotter; Leigh Kinsman; Mohammed Rashaad Hansia; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Donna Goodridge; Erika Penz; Darcy Marciniuk
BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory syndrome characterized by progressive, partially reversible airway obstruction and lung hyperinflation. COPD has a substantial burden which is seen in both patient quality of life and healthcare costs. One proposed method of minimizing this burden is the implementation of clinical pathways (CPWs). CPWs aim to guide evidence-based practice and improve the interaction between health services. They bring the best available evidence to a range of healthcare professionals by adapting evidence-based clinical guidelines to a local context and detailing the essential steps in the assessment and care of patients.MethodsThe aim of this systematic review is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of CPWs for the treatment or management of COPD. We will screen search hits from search strategies developed for a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) systematic review on the use of CPWs in primary care and a Cochrane EPOC review on the use of CPWs in hospitals. These searches were run in a range of databases. Studies will be screened independently by two reviewers. All studies identified by our search strategy will be considered regardless of study design as long as they meet the operational definition for clinical pathways developed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8, 2010) and focus on the treatment or management of COPD. All included studies will be evaluated for risk of bias utilizing methodologies set out by the Cochrane collaboration. Data regarding patient, professional and systems outcomes will be extracted from all included studies. Data will be presented in both narrative and tabular form.DiscussionThe systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to identify, assess and synthesise all available evidence on the effects of CPWs regarding the treatment and management of COPD. As a result, this review will provide an evidence base for decision makers regarding the practicality, cost effectiveness, patient benefit and best practices regarding the implementation of CPWs for the care of COPD.
Systematic Reviews | 2018
Jolanda C. van Middelkoop-van Hoeve; Robin W.M. Vernooij; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Michelle Fiander; Peter Nieboer; Sabine Siesling; Thomas Rotter
BackgroundThe high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings.MethodsThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis described in this protocol is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of oncological care pathways. We will conduct a systematic search strategy to identify all relevant literature in several biomedical databases, including Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We will follow the methodology of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), and we will include randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, we will include full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses), cost analyses, and comparative resource utilization studies, if available. Two reviewers will independently screen all studies and evaluate those included for risk of bias. From these studies, we will extract data regarding patient, professional, and health systems outcomes. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.DiscussionFollowing the protocol outlined in this article, we aim to identify, assess, and synthesize all available evidence in order to provide an evidence base on the effects of oncological care pathways as reported in the literature.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017057592.
Evaluation & the Health Professions | 2018
Thomas Rotter; Christopher Plishka; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Liz Harrison; Nazmi Sari; Donna Goodridge; Rachel Flynn; James G Chan; Michelle Fiander; Bonnie Poksinska; Keith A. Willoughby; Leigh Kinsman
Industrial improvement approaches such as Lean management are increasingly being adopted in health care. Synthesis is necessary to ensure these approaches are evidence based and requires operationalization of concepts to ensure all relevant studies are included. This article outlines the process utilized to develop an operational definition of Lean in health care. The literature search, screening, data extraction, and data synthesis processes followed the recommendations outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. Development of the operational definition utilized the methods prescribed by Kinsman et al. and Wieland et al. This involved extracting characteristics of Lean, synthesizing similar components to establish an operational definition, applying this definition, and updating the definition to address shortcomings. We identified two defining characteristics of Lean health-care management: (1) Lean philosophy, consisting of Lean principles and continuous improvement, and (2) Lean activities, which include Lean assessment activities and Lean improvement activities. The resulting operational definition requires that an organization or subunit of an organization had integrated Lean philosophy into the organization’s mandate, guidelines, or policies and utilized at least one Lean assessment activity or Lean improvement activity. This operational definition of Lean management in health care will act as an objective screening criterion for our systematic review. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence-based operational definition of Lean management in health care.
BMC Health Services Research | 2017
Thomas Rotter; Christopher Plishka; Mohammed Rashaad Hansia; Donna Goodridge; Erika Penz; Leigh Kinsman; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Sheryl O’Quinn; Nancy Buchan; Patricia Comfort; Prakesh Patel; Sheila Anderson; Tanya Winkel; Rae Lynn Lang; Darcy Marciniuk
BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has substantial economic and human costs; it is expected to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. To minimize these costs high quality guidelines have been developed. However, guidelines alone rarely result in meaningful change. One method of integrating guidelines into practice is the use of clinical pathways (CPWs). CPWs bring available evidence to a range of healthcare professionals by detailing the essential steps in care and adapting guidelines to the local context.Methods/designWe are working with local stakeholders to develop CPWs for COPD with the aims of improving care while reducing utilization. The CPWs will employ several steps including: standardizing diagnostic training, unifying components of chronic disease care, coordinating education and reconditioning programs, and ensuring care uses best practices. Further, we have worked to identify evidence-informed implementation strategies which will be tailored to the local context.We will conduct a three-year research project using an interrupted time series (ITS) design in the form of a multiple baseline approach with control groups. The CPW will be implemented in two health regions (experimental groups) and two health regions will act as controls (control groups). The experimental and control groups will each contain an urban and rural health region. Primary outcomes for the study will be quality of care operationalized using hospital readmission rates and emergency department (ED) presentation rates. Secondary outcomes will be healthcare utilization and guideline adherence, operationalized using hospital admission rates, hospital length of stay and general practitioner (GP) visits. Results will be analyzed using segmented regression analysis.DiscussionFunding has been procured from multiple stakeholders. The project has been deemed exempt from ethics review as it is a quality improvement project. Intervention implementation is expected to begin in summer of 2017.This project is expected to improve quality of care and reduce healthcare utilization. In addition it will provide evidence on the effects of CPWs in both urban and rural settings. If the CPWs are found effective we will work with all stakeholders to implement similar CPWs in surrounding health regions.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov (NCT03075709). Registered 8 March 2017.
Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research | 2015
Kelechi N. Eguzo; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Chisara C. Umezurike; Eseigbe Ce
Background: Patient attrition has been a challenge in managing HIV programs in resource-limited settings. Aim: This study reviews the predictors of loss to follow-up (LTFU) in our hospital and suggests the best practices for dealing with the issue. Subjects and Methods: A 5-year retrospective cohort study of 1256 HIV-infected patients. Baseline CD4 counts, age, gender, year of enrolment, and antiretroviral therapy combination regimen were considered in this study. Kaplan–Meier models were used to estimate the univariate time-to-LTFU and Cox proportional hazards models to identify the multivariate predictors of LTFU. Results: Twenty-four percent (23.9% [301/1256]) of patients were lost to follow-up. Baseline CD4 count, year of enrolment, and drug combination were significant predictors of LTFU. Patients enrolled earlier (2008/2009) were twice as likely to be LTFU compared with those enrolled later (2010–2013). Gender and age did not significantly predict LTFU nor confound other predictors. Conclusion: The program showed higher LTFU rates than most studies in Nigeria and Africa, maybe due to difficulties with the access to the hospital and possible treatment fatigue. This study recommends the provision of transportation subsidies and proactive patient follow-up with “peer-tracking” to reduce LTFU among HIV infected patients, especially in resource-limited settings.
International Journal of Health Planning and Management | 2018
Oluwakemi A. Awe; Udoka Okpalauwaekwe; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Marcus M. Ilesanmi; Cindy Feng; Marwa Farag
Archive | 2015
Kelechi N. Eguzo; Adegboyega K. Lawal; Farzana Ali; Chisara C. Umezurike