Search

Background: When doctors have honest conversations with patients about their illness and involve them in decisions about their care, patients express greater satisfaction with care and lowered anxiety and depression. The Serious Illness Care Programme (the Programme), originally developed in the United States (U.S), promotes meaningful, realistic and focused conversations about patient's wishes, fears and worries for the future with their illness. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (the guide) provides a framework to structure these conversations. The aim of this paper is to present findings from a study to examine the 'face validity', acceptability and relevance of the Guide for use within the United Kingdom (UK) health care setting.Methods: A multi-stage approach was undertaken, using three separate techniques: 1. Nominal Group Technique with clinician 'expert groups' to review the Serious Illness Conversation Guide: 14 'experts' in Oncology, Palliative Care and Communication Skills; 2. Cognitive Interviews with 6 patient and public representatives, using the 'think aloud technique'; to explore the cognitive processes involved in answering the questions in the guide, including appropriateness of language, question wording and format 3. Final stakeholder review and consensus.Results: Nominal Group Technique Unanimous agreement the conversation guide could provide a useful support to clinicians. Amendments are required but should be informed directly from the cognitive interviews. Training highlighted as key to underpin the use of the guide. Cognitive interviews The 'holistic' attention to the person as a whole was valued rather than a narrow focus on their disease. Some concern was raised regarding the 'formality' of some wording however and suggestions for amendments were made. Final stakeholder review Stakeholders agreed amendments to 5/13 prompts and unanimously agreed the UK guide should be implemented as a part of the pilot implementation of the Serious Illness Care Programme UK.Conclusion: Use of the guide has the potential to benefit patients, facilitating a 'person-centred' approach to these important conversations, and providing a framework to promote shared decision making and care planning. Further research is ongoing, to understand the impact of these conversations on patients, families and clinicians and on concordance of care delivery with expressed patient wishes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped.Methods: To strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design.Results: In this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs.Conclusion: A planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is becoming increasingly common for individuals and organizations to use social media platforms such as Facebook. These are being used for a wide variety of purposes including disseminating, discussing and seeking health related information. U.S. Federal health agencies are leveraging these platforms to 'engage' social media users to read, spread, promote and encourage health related discussions. However, different agencies and their communications get varying levels of engagement. In this study we use statistical models to identify factors that associate with engagement.Methods: We analyze over 45,000 Facebook posts from 72 Facebook accounts belonging to 24 health agencies. Account usage, user activity, sentiment and content of these posts are studied. We use the hurdle regression model to identify factors associated with the level of engagement and Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors associated with duration of engagement.Results: In our analysis we find that agencies and accounts vary widely in their usage of social media and activity they generate. Statistical analysis shows, for instance, that Facebook posts with more visual cues such as photos or videos or those which express positive sentiment generate more engagement. We further find that posts on certain topics such as occupation or organizations negatively affect the duration of engagement.Conclusions: We present the first comprehensive analyses of engagement with U.S. Federal health agencies on Facebook. In addition, we briefly compare and contrast findings from this study to our earlier study with similar focus but on Twitter to show the robustness of our methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A number of private and public companies calculate and publish proprietary hospital patient safety scores based on publicly available quality measures initially reported by the U.S. federal government. This study examines whether patient safety culture perceptions of U.S. hospital staff in a large national survey are related to publicly reported patient safety ratings of hospitals.Methods: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (Hospital SOPS) assesses provider and staff perceptions of hospital patient safety culture. Consumer Reports (CR), a U.S. based non-profit organization, calculates and shares with its subscribers a Hospital Safety Score calculated annually from patient experience survey data and outcomes data gathered from federal databases. Linking data collected during similar time periods, we analyzed relationships between staff perceptions of patient safety culture composites and the CR Hospital Safety Score and its five components using multiple multivariate linear regressions.Results: We analyzed data from 164 hospitals, with patient safety culture survey responses from 140,316 providers and staff, with an average of 856 completed surveys per hospital and an average response rate per hospital of 56%. Higher overall Hospital SOPS composite average scores were significantly associated with higher overall CR Hospital Safety Scores (β = 0.24, p < 0.05). For 10 of the 12 Hospital SOPS composites, higher patient safety culture scores were associated with higher CR patient experience scores on communication about medications and discharge.Conclusion: This study found a relationship between hospital staff perceptions of patient safety culture and the Consumer Reports Hospital Safety Score, which is a composite of patient experience and outcomes data from federal databases. As hospital managers allocate resources to improve patient safety culture within their organizations, their efforts may also indirectly improve consumer-focused, publicly reported hospital rating scores like the Consumer Reports Hospital Safety Score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health information technology (HIT) could improve care coordination by providing clinicians remote access to information, improving legibility, and allowing asynchronous communication, among other mechanisms. We sought to determine, from a clinician perspective, how care is coordinated and to what extent HIT is involved when transitioning patients between emergency departments, acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies in settings across the United States.Methods: We performed a qualitative study with clinicians and information technology professionals from six regions of the U.S. which were chosen as national leaders in HIT. We analyzed data through a two person consensus approach, assigning responses to each of nine care coordination activities. We also conducted a literature review of MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, and Embase, analyzing results of studies that examined interventions to improve information transfer during transitions of care.Results: We enrolled 29 respondents from 17 organizations and conducted six focus groups. Respondents reported how HIT is currently used for care coordination activities. HIT is currently used to monitor patients and to align systems-level resources with population needs. However, we identified multiple areas where the lack of interoperability leads to inefficient processes and missing data. Additionally, the literature review identified ten intervention studies that address information transfer, seven of which employed HIT and three of which utilized other communication methods such as telephone calls, faxed records, and nurse case management.Conclusions: Significant care coordination gaps exist due to the lack of interoperability across the United States. We must design, evaluate, and incentivize the use of HIT for care coordination. We should focus on the domains where we found the largest gaps: information transfer, systems to monitor patients, tools to support patients' self-management goals, and tools to link patients and their caregivers with community resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a lack of research on the organisational operations of integrative healthcare (IHC) practices. IHC is a therapeutic strategy integrating conventional and complementary medicine in a shared context to administer individualized treatment. To better understand the process of care in IHC - the way in which patients are triaged and treatment plans are constructed, interviews were conducted with integrative health care leaders and practitioners in the US. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a pragmatic group of fourteen leaders and practitioners from nine different IHC settings. All interviews were conducted face-to-face with the exception of one phone interview. Questions focussed on understanding the "process of care" in an integrative healthcare setting. Deductive categories were formed from the aims of the study, focusing on: organisational structure, processes of care (subcategories: patient intake, treatment and charting, use of guidelines or protocols), prevalent diseases or conditions treated, and the role of research in the organisation. The similarities and differences of the ITH entities emerged from this process. Results: On an organisational level, conventional and CM services and therapies were co-located in all nine settings. For patients, this means there is more opportunity for 'seamless care'. Shared information systems enabled easy communication using internal messaging or email systems, and shared patient intake information. But beyond this infrastructure alignment for integrative health care was less supported. There were no use of protocols or guidelines within any centre, no patient monitoring mechanism beyond that which occurred within one-on-one appointments. Joint planning for a patient treatment was typically ad hoc through informal mechanisms. Additional duties typically come at a direct financial cost to fee-for-service practitioners. In contrast, service delivery and the process of care within hospital inpatient services followed a more formalised structure. Conclusions: IHC is a complex, emerging field with divergent meanings and interpretations. The structures and processes of the IHC entities reported provide insight to the variable ways in which IHC manifests whilst commonly holding a similar vision. This report contributes to understanding IHC, providing evidence for future planning, implementation and evaluation to meet patient needs and demands in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear. Methods: GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines. Discussion: Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The strength of a society's response to a public health emergency depends partly on meeting the needs of all segments of the population, especially those who are most vulnerable and subject to greatest adversity. Since the early stages of the H1N1 pandemic, public communication of H1N1 information has been recognized as a challenging issue. Public communication is considered a critical public health task to mitigating adverse population health outcomes before, during, and after public health emergencies. To investigate knowledge and knowledge gaps in the general population regarding the H1N1 pandemic, and to identify the social determinants associated with those gaps, we conducted a survey in March 2010 using a representative random sample of U.S. households. Methods: Data were gathered from 1,569 respondents (66.3% response rate) and analyzed using ordered logistic regression to study the impact of socioeconomic factors and demographic characteristics on the individual's knowledge concerning H1N1 infection and transmission. Results: Results suggest that level of education and home ownership, reliable indicators of socioeconomic position (SEP), were associated with knowledge of H1N1. Level of education was found to be directly associated with level of knowledge about virus transmission [OR = 1.35, 95% C.I. 1.12-1.63]. Home ownership versus renting was also positively associated with knowledge on the signs and symptoms of H1N1 infection in particular [OR = 2.89, 95% C.I. 1.26-6.66]. Conclusions: Policymakers and public health practitioners should take specific SEP factors into consideration when implementing educational and preventive interventions promoting the health and preparedness of the population, and when designing communication campaigns during a public health emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]