Search

ObjectiveHospital-acquired pressure injuries are localised skin injuries that cause significant mortality and are costly. Nursing best practices prevent pressure injuries, including time-consuming, complex tasks that lack payment incentives. The Braden Scale is an evidence-based stratification tool nurses use daily to assess pressure-injury risk. Our objective was to analyse the cost-utility of performing repeated risk-assessment for pressure-injury prevention in all patients or high-risk groups.DesignCost-utility analysis using Markov modelling from US societal and healthcare sector perspectives within a 1-year time horizon.SettingPatient-level longitudinal data on 34 787 encounters from an academic hospital electronic health record (EHR) between 2011 and 2014, including daily Braden scores. Supervised machine learning simulated age-adjusted transition probabilities between risk levels and pressure injuries.ParticipantsHospitalised adults with Braden scores classified into five risk levels: very high risk (6–9), high risk (10–11), moderate risk (12–14), at-risk (15–18), minimal risk (19–23).InterventionsStandard care, repeated risk assessment in all risk levels or only repeated risk assessment in high-risk strata based on machine-learning simulations.Main outcome measuresCosts (2016 $US) of pressure-injury treatment and prevention, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) related to pressure injuries were weighted by transition probabilities to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $100 000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested model uncertainty.ResultsSimulating prevention for all patients yielded greater QALYs at higher cost from societal and healthcare sector perspectives, equating to ICERs of $2000/QALY and $2142/QALY, respectively. Risk-stratified follow-up in patients with Braden scores 99% of probabilistic simulations.ConclusionOur analysis using EHR data maintains that pressure-injury prevention for all inpatients is cost-effective. Hospitals should invest in nursing compliance with international prevention guidelines.

Objective In December 2016, 66 health leaders from 14 countries convened at the Salzburg Global Seminar (SGS) to engage in cross-cultural and collaborative discussions centered on 'Rethinking Care Toward the End of Life'. Conversations focused on global perspectives on death and dying, challenges experienced by researchers, physicians, patients and family caregivers. This paper summarizes key findings and recommendations from SGS. Design Featured sessions focused on critical issues of end of life care led by key stakeholders, physicians, researchers, and other global leaders in palliative care. Sessions spanned across several critical themes including: patient/family/caregiver engagement, integrating health and community-based social care, eliciting and honoring patient preferences, building an evidence base for palliative care, learning from system failures, and delivering end of life care in low-resource countries. Sessions were followed by intensive collaborative discussions which helped formulate key recommendations for rethinking and ultimately advancing end of life care. Results Prominent lessons learned from SGS include learning from low-resource countries, development of evidence-based quality measures, implementing changes in training and education, and respecting the personal agency of patients and their families. Conclusion There is a global need to rethink, and ultimately revolutionize end of life care in all countries. This paper outlines key aspects of end of life care that warrant explicit improvement through specific action from key stakeholders.

Purpose: To explore the methods through which physicians deliver compassionate care during end-of-life (EOL). Compassionate care provides benefits to patients and providers and is particularly important for patients with serious illnesses, yet its practice remains limited. We aim to qualitatively characterize methods utilized by physicians that facilitate the delivery of compassionate care at EOL. Methods: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with physicians from palliative care and medical oncology subspecialities at a rural academic medical centre in New Hampshire. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a qualitative research design. Results: Participants described methods of compassionate care ranging from symptom control to less tangible, non-verbal methods. Primary barriers to the delivery of compassionate care were described as within the broader healthcare system and within the inherent emotional difficulty of EOL care. Physicians from both subspecialities emphasized the importance of successful inter-provider relationships. Conclusions: Methods for delivering compassionate care at EOL are wide ranging, but barriers on a systemic and individual level should be addressed to make its practice more widespread. This can be accomplished, in part, by the standardization of EOL conversations, training physicians how to have meaningful EOL conversations, and integration of such conversations into electronic medical records.

In 2008, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established nonpayment policies resulting from costliness of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) to hospitals. This prompted hospitals to adopt quality improvement (QI) interventions that increase use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for HAPU prevention.To evaluate the longitudinal impact of CMS policy and QI adoption on HAPU rates.We characterized longitudinal adoption of 25 QI interventions that support EBPs through hospital leadership, staff, information technology, and performance and improvement. Quarterly counts of HAPU incidence and inpatient characteristics were collected from 55 University HealthSystem Consortium hospitals between 2007 and 2012. Mixed-effects regression models tested the longitudinal association of CMS policy, HAPU coding, and QI on HAPU rates. The models assumed level-2 random intercepts and random effects for CMS policy and EBP implementation to account for between-hospital variability in HAPU incidence.Controlling for all 25 QI interventions, specific updates to EBPs for HAPU prevention had a significant, though modest reduction on HAPU rates (-1.86 cases/quarter; P=0.002) and the effect of CMS nonpayment policy on HAPU prevention was much greater (-11.32 cases/quarter; P0.001).HAPU rates were significantly lower after changes in CMS reimbursement. Reductions are associated with hospital-wide implementation of EBPs for HAPU prevention. Given that administrative data were used, it remains unknown whether these improvements were due to changes in coding or improved quality of care.

Background/objective In nursing homes across the world, and particularly in Spain, there are concerns that psychotropic medications are being overused. For older Spanish nursing home residents who had dementia, we sought to evaluate the association between applying interventions designed to reduce inappropriate psychotropic medication use and subsequent psychotropic use. Design Retrospective, propensity score-matched, controlled, patient-level observational analysis. Setting A total of 45 nursing homes in Spain. Participants A total of 1653 nursing home residents, aged 70 to 99 years, who had dementia and were prescribed an antipsychotic, anxiolytic, or antidepressant medication, 606 of whom received an intervention; the remainder served as propensity score-matched controls. Intervention Team Rounds, Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria, or a Patient Decision Aid. Measurements At 2 and 4 weeks following intervention: change from baseline drug class-specific milligram-equivalent daily dose (MEDD); at 2 weeks: patient falls and restraint use. Results Within each intervention/drug-class cohort, intervention patients and matched controls had similar baseline demographic characteristics, Charlson scores, lengths of admission, and drug class-specific MEDDs. Compared to controls, patients exposed to Team Rounds experienced a 23.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.9%-32.8%) reduction in antipsychotic and a 23.1% (95% CI = 18.3%-28.0%) reduction in anxiolytic MEDDs; those exposed to Patient Decision Aids had a 24.8% (95% CI = 15.6%-33.9%) reduction in antipsychotic and a 31.8% (95% CI = 25.5%-38.2%) reduction in anxiolytic MEDDs; and those exposed to STOPP/START application had a 27.7% (95% CI = 22.4%-33.0%) reduction in antipsychotic and a 39.5% (95% CI = 35.5%-43.5%) reduction in anxiolytic MEDDs. Intervention-associated antidepressant MEDD reductions were statistically significant but less dramatic. Interventions were associated with higher rates of medication discontinuation, but not higher rates of deaths, patient falls, or physical restraints. Conclusion We found strong evidence that the interventions we studied were associated with reduced psychotropic use without commensurate harms, suggesting that such interventions should be incorporated into Spanish nursing home care models. Public reporting of psychotropic medication use in Spanish care homes may encourage care homes to regularly monitor psychotropic medication use and implement such instruments. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2019.

Background People with psychosis struggle with decisions about their use of antipsychotics. They often want to reduce the dose or stop, while facing uncertainty regarding the effects these decisions will have on their treatment and recovery. They may also fear raising this issue with clinicians. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a shared decision making (SDM) tool to support patients and clinicians in making decisions about antipsychotics. Methods A diverse editorial research team developed an Encounter Decision Aid (EDA) for patients and clinicians to use as part of the psychiatric consultation. The EDA was tested using 24 semistructured interviews with participants representing six stakeholder groups: patients with first-episode psychosis, patients with long-term psychosis, family members, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and administrators. We used inductive and deductive coding of interview transcripts to identify points to revise within three domains: general impression and purpose of the EDA; suggested changes to the content, wording, and appearance; and usability and potential contribution to the psychiatric consultation. Results An EDA was developed in an iterative process that yielded evidence-based answers to five frequently asked questions about antipsychotic medications. Patients with long-term psychosis and mental health counselors suggested more changes and revisions than patients with first-episode psychosis and psychiatrists. Family members suggested more revisions to the answers about potential risks of stopping or adjusting antipsychotics than other respondents. Conclusions The EDA was perceived as potentially useful and feasible in psychiatric routine care, especially if presented during the consultation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12888-018-1707-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVES\ud To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how\ud to achieve shared decision making, and to consult\ud with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider\ud engagement.\ud \ud DESIGN\ud Multistage consultation process.\ud \ud SETTING\ud Key informant group, communities of interest, and\ud survey of clinical specialties.\ud \ud PARTICIPANTS\ud 19 key informants, 153 member responses from\ud multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses\ud to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians\ud from six specialties.\ud \ud RESULTS\ud After extended consultation over three iterations, we\ud revised the three-talk model by making changes to\ud one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient\ud goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk\ud category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate\ud each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision\ud making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option\ud talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of\ud collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places\ud emphasis on the need to provide support to patients\ud when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit\ud their goals as a means of guiding decision making\ud processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing\ud alternatives, using risk communication principles.\ud Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions\ud that reflect the informed preferences of patients,\ud guided by the experience and expertise of health\ud professionals.\ud \ud CONCLUSIONS\ud The revised three-talk model of shared decision\ud making depicts conversational steps, initiated by\ud providing support when introducing options, followed\ud by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs,\ud before deliberation based on informed preferences.

Health-care delivery is a complex and fragmented system with work-around culture. Improving health-care delivery requires innovating system interventions that redesign processes for consistent implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Systems engineering is an approach that involves anticipating ineffective processes that jeopardize quality, and designing interventions to overcome such shortcomings. This approach is based on systems teaching about reflexivity, which when addressed can support consistent EBP and assesses how the newly designed system meets this consistency. Integrating a systems engineering approach to implementing EBP may effectively address complex issues such as hospital-acquired pressure ulcer prevention, which has an EBP protocol that is not consistently implemented without system redesign. Engineering approaches and methods including Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA), Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendations (SBAR), stochastic modeling, House of Quality, and statistical process control charts with lean six sigma provide a structured approach to identifying points of successful implementation for EBPs that can subvert work-around culture. This perspective piece reviews successful approaches of systems engineering to solve the problem of clinical work-arounds and puts forward the case for its wider application to health-care delivery systems that could benefit from standardized EBPs.

ObjectiveTo develop and pilot an encounter-based decision aid (eDA) for people with depression for use in primary care.DesignWe developed an eDA for depression through cognitive interviews and pilot tested it using a one-group pretest, post-test design in primary care. Feasibility, fidelity of eDA use and acceptability were assessed using recruitment rates and semistructured interviews with patients, medical assistants and clinicians. Treatment choice and shared decision-making (SDM) were also assessed.SettingInterviews with adult patients and the public were conducted in a mall and library in Grafton County, New Hampshire, while clinician interviews took place by phone or at the clinician’s office. Pilot testing occurred in a New Hampshire primary care practice.ParticipantsCognitive interviews were conducted with adults, ≥18 years, who could read English from the following stakeholder groups: history of depression, the public and clinicians. Patients with a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of ≥5 were recruited for piloting.ResultsThree stages of cognitive interviews were conducted (n=28). Changes to eDA included moving the combination therapy information and access to treatment information, adding colour, modifying pictograms and editing the talk-therapy description. Clinician concerns about patient health literacy were not reflected in patient interviews. Of 59 patients who reviewed study information, 56 were eligible and agreed to participate in pilot testing; however, only 29 could be reached for follow-up. The eDA was widely accepted, though clinicians did not always use it as intended. We found no impact of eDA use on SDM, though patients chose a wider range of treatment options.ConclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility of the use of an eDA for depression in primary care that was widely accepted. Further research is needed to improve the fidelity with which the eDA is used and to assess its impact on SDM and related health outcomes.

Objective: Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) have a mortality rate of 11.6%, are costly to treat, and result in Medicare reimbursement penalties. Medicare codes HAPUs according to Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient-Safety Indicator 3 (PSI-03), but they are sometimes inappropriately coded. The objective is to use electronic health records to predict pressure ulcers and to identify coding issues leading to penalties. Materials and Methods: We evaluated all hospitalized patient electronic medical records at an academic medical center data repository between 2011 and 2014. These data contained patient encounter level demographic variables, diagnoses, prescription drugs, and provider orders. HAPUs were defined by PSI-03: stages III, IV, or unstageable pressure ulcers not present on admission as a secondary diagnosis, excluding cases of paralysis. Random forests reduced data dimensionality. Multilevel logistic regression of patient encounters evaluated associations between covariates and HAPU incidence. Results: The approach produced a sample population of 21 153 patients with 1549 PSI-03 cases. The greatest odds ratio (OR) of HAPU incidence was among patients diagnosed with spinal cord injury (ICD-9 907.2: OR = 14.3; P Discussion: This analysis identifies spinal cord injuries as high risk for HAPUs and as being often inappropriately coded without paralysis, leading to PSI-03 flags. The resulting statistical model can be tested to predict HAPUs during hospitalization. Conclusion: Inappropriate coding of conditions leads to poor hospital performance measures and Medicare reimbursement penalties.

Contains fulltext : 167238.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) OBJECTIVE: To identify information priorities for consumers and clinicians making depression treatment decisions and assess shared decision-making (SDM) in routine depression care. DESIGN: 20 questions related to common features of depression treatments were provided. Participants were initially asked to select which features were important, and in a second stage they were asked to rank their top 5 'important features' in order of importance. Clinicians were asked to provide rankings according to both consumer and clinician perspectives. Consumers completed CollaboRATE, a measure of SDM. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified consumer characteristics associated with CollaboRATE scores. SETTING: Online cross-sectional surveys fielded in September to December 2014. PARTICIPANTS: We administered surveys to convenience samples of US adults with depression and clinicians who treat depression. Consumer sampling was targeted to reflect age, gender and educational attainment of adults with depression in the USA. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Information priority rankings; CollaboRATE, a 3-item consumer-reported measure of SDM. RESULTS: 972 consumers and 244 clinicians completed the surveys. The highest ranked question for both consumers and clinicians was 'Will the treatment work?' Clinicians were aware of consumers' priorities, yet did not always prioritise that information themselves, particularly insurance coverage and cost of treatment. Only 18% of consumers reported high levels of SDM. Working with a psychiatrist (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.26) and female gender (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.25 to 3.34) were associated with top CollaboRATE scores. CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians know what information is important to consumers making depression treatment decisions, they do not always address these concerns. This mismatch, coupled with low SDM, adversely affects the quality of depression care. Development of a decision support intervention based on our findings can improve levels of SDM and provide clinicians and consumers with a tool to address the existing misalignment in information priorities.

ObjectiveIf patient engagement is the new ‘blockbuster drug’ why are we not seeing spectacular effects? Studies have shown that activated patients have improved health outcomes, and patient engagement has become an integral component of value-based payment and delivery models, including accountable care organisations (ACO). Yet the extent to which clinicians and managers at ACOs understand and reliably execute patient engagement in clinical encounters remains unknown. We assessed the use and understanding of patient engagement approaches among frontline clinicians and managers at ACO-affiliated practices.DesignQualitative study; 103 in-depth, semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsSixty clinicians and eight managers were interviewed at two established ACOs.ApproachWe interviewed healthcare professionals about their awareness, attitudes, understanding and experiences of implementing three key approaches to patient engagement and activation: 1) goal-setting, 2) motivational interviewing and 3) shared decision making. Of the 60 clinicians, 33 were interviewed twice leading to 93 clinician interviews. Of the 8 managers, 2 were interviewed twice leading to 10 manager interviews. We used a thematic analysis approach to the data.Key resultsInterviewees recognised the term ‘patient activation and engagement’ and had favourable attitudes about the utility of the associated skills. However, in-depth probing revealed that although interviewees reported that they used these patient activation and engagement approaches, they have limited understanding of these approaches.ConclusionsWithout understanding the concept of patient activation and the associated approaches of shared decision making and motivational interviewing, effective implementation in routine care seems like a distant goal. Clinical teams in the ACO model would benefit from specificity defining key terms pertaining to the principles of patient activation and engagement. Measuring the degree of understanding with reward that are better-aligned for behaviour change will minimise the notion that these techniques are already being used and help fulfil the potential of patient-centred care.