Table 5.

Analysis of studies’ SNA metrics and patient outcome findings

Metric	Study	Patient outcomes	Association with metric	Overall association
Centrality	Effken et al.	Adverse drug events (ADEs)	“Betweenness centrality” positively correlated (rho = .73) with ADEs	Generally, as centrality measures increase, patient outcomes improve; however, there were many patient outcomes for which there was no significant association with a centrality measure. Effken exception. Higher betweenness centrality, with potentially more gatekeepers resulted in more ADEs. With symptom management difference, the seemingly inconsistent association with centrality could actually point to the importance of small group communication with this outcome measure and that those with more out-degree ties are novices seeking advice.
		Falls	Not significant
		Symptom management difference	“Centrality out-degree” negatively correlated (rho = −.79) although eigenvector centrality positively correlated (rho = .69)
		Symptom management capacity	Not significant
		Simple self-care management	Not significant
		Complex self-care management	Not significant
	Lindberg et al.	Access-related bloodstream infections	Not significant
	Mundt et al.	Alcohol-related emergency department visits	Statistically significant (sig.) GLMM model with only weak “in-degree ties” had positive association(RR 1.23, p < 0.01), models with any strong ties had inverse association (RR range 0.8–0.9, p < 0.05)
		Alcohol-related hospitalizations	Sig. GLMM models with groups of HCWs with any weak “in-degree ties” had positive association (RR 1.1, p < 0.05, RR 1.25, p < 0.01), model with groups of HCWs with only strong ties had inverse association (RR .95, p < 0.05)
		Alcohol-related costs per 1000 team patients over 12 months	In an average team size of 19, the addition of a HCW with strong “in-degree ties” reduced cost by $1030 (p < 0.05),weak ties increased cost by $2922 (p < 0.01)
	Hossain and Guan	Wait time to see physician	Not significant
		Revisits within 72 h	Not significant
		Deaths within emergency department	Not significant
		Left before seeing physician	“Network centralization” inversely associated (beta = − 0.221, sig. < 0.001)
Metric	Study	Patient Outcomes	Association with metric	Overall association
Density	Effken et al.	Adverse drug events	Not significant	Density positively associated with improved patient outcomes. However, there were patient outcomes for which there was no significant relationship with density.
		Falls	Not significant
		Symptom management difference	Positively associated (rho = 0.70, p < 0.10)
		Symptom management capacity	positively associated (rho = 0.75, p < 0.10)
		Simple self-care management	Not significant
		Complex self-care management	Not significant
	Creswick and Westbrook	Prescription error rates (procedural and clinical)	Inversely associated (ward A error rates 5.46 and 1.81 with density 12% vs ward B error rates 1.53 and 0.63 with density 7%)
	Hossain and Guan	Wait time to see physician	Inversely associated (beta = − 0.107) for waiting “overestimated triage time” but not significant for “waiting above average”
		Revisits within 72 h	Inversely associated (beta = − 0.159, sig. = 0.003)
		Deaths within emergency department	Not significant
		Left before seeing physician	Inversely associated (beta = − 0.273, sig. < 0.001)