Search

In the intensive care unit (ICU), clinicians must often make risk trade-offs on patient care. For example, on deciding whether to discharge a patient before they have fully recovered in order to create a bed for another, sicker, patient. When misjudged, these decisions can negatively influence patient outcomes: yet it can be difficult, if not impossible, for clinicians to evaluate with certainty the safest course of action. Using a vignette-based interview methodology, a naturalistic decision-making approach was utilised to study this phenomena. The decision preferences of ICU clinicians (n = 24) for two common risk trade-off scenarios were investigated. Qualitative analysis revealed the sample of clinicians to reach different, and sometimes oppositional, decision preferences. These practice variations emerged from differing analyses of risk, how decisions were 'framed' (e.g. philosophies on care), past experiences, and perceptions of group and organisational norms. Implications for patient safety and clinical decision-making are discussed. Practitioner Summary: Physicians managing ICUs have to make rapid decisions with incomplete information and suboptimal resources. A qualitative vignette-based interview study examined how such decisions are made. We found physicians used a heterogeneous mixture of risk assessments, factual knowledge and prior experience to make judgements, which leads to potential for inconsistent decision-making.

Purpose of Review: The contribution of qualitative methods to evidence-based medicine is growing, with qualitative studies increasingly used to examine patient experience and unsafe organizational cultures. The present review considers qualitative research recently conducted on teamwork and organizational culture in the ICU and also other acute domains., Recent Findings: Qualitative studies have highlighted the importance of interpersonal and social aspects of healthcare on managing and responding to patient care needs. Clear/consistent communication, compassion, and trust underpin successful patient-physician interactions, with improved patient experiences linked to patient safety and clinical effectiveness across a wide range of measures and outcomes. Across multidisciplinary teams, good communication facilitates shared understanding, decision-making and coordinated action, reducing patient risk in the process., Summary: Qualitative methods highlight the complex nature of risk management in hospital wards, which is highly contextualized to the demands and resources available, and influenced by multilayered social contexts. In addition to augmenting quantitative research, qualitative investigations enable the investigation of questions on social behaviour that are beyond the scope of quantitative assessment alone. To develop improved patient-centred care, health professionals should therefore consider integrating qualitative procedures into their existing assessments of patient/staff satisfaction.

Background: The ability of medical teams to develop and maintain team situation awareness (team SA) is crucial for patient safety. Limited research has investigated team SA within clinical environments. This study reports the development of a method for investigating team SA during the intensive care unit (ICU) round and describes the results., Methods: In one ICU, a sample of doctors and nurses (n = 44, who combined to form 37 different teams) were observed during 34 morning ward rounds. Following the clinical review of each patient (n = 105), team members individually recorded their anticipations for expected patient developments over 48 h. Patient-outcome data were collected to determine the accuracy of anticipations. Anticipations were compared among ICU team members, and the degree of consensus was used as a proxy measure of team SA. Self-report and observational data measured team-member involvement and communication during patient reviews., Results: For over half of 105 patients, ICU team members formed conflicting anticipations as to whether patients would deteriorate within 48 h. Senior doctors were most accurate in their predictions. Exploratory analysis found that team processes did not predict team SA. However, the involvement of junior and senior trainee doctors in the patient decision-making process predicted the extent to which those team members formed team SA with senior doctors., Conclusions: A new method for measuring team SA during the ICU round was successfully employed. A number of areas for future research were identified, including refinement of the situation awareness and teamwork measures.

Objectives: To identify the behaviors senior physicians (e.g., specialists, staff attendings) report using to lead multidisciplinary teams in the intensive care unit., Design: Semistructured interviews focusing on team leadership, crisis management, and development of an environment that enable effective team performance in the intensive care unit., Setting: Seven general intensive care units based in National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom., Participants: Twenty-five senior intensive care medicine physicians., Measurements and Main Results: Responses to a semistructured interview were transcribed and subjected to "content" analysis. The interview analysis focused on references to the "functional" behaviors used by leaders to manage team performance and the "team development behaviors" used to build the conditions that enable effective team performance. Seven of the interviews were coded by a second psychologist to measure inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability (Cohen's κ) was acceptable for both scales (κ = 0.72 and κ = 0.75). In total, 702 functional leadership behaviors (behaviors for information gathering, planning and decision-making, managing team members) were coded as being used to manage the intensive care unit, along with 216 team development behaviors (for providing team direction and establishing team norms). These behaviors were grouped together in a theoretically driven framework of intensive care unit team leadership., Conclusions: Intensive care unit senior physicians report using a variety of leadership behaviors to ensure high levels of team performance. The data described in this study provide insight into the team leadership behaviors used by intensive care unit team leaders and have implications for the development of team leadership training and assessment tools.

The aviation industry has made significant progress in identifying the skills and behaviors that result in effective teamwork. Its conceptualization of teamwork, development of training programs, and design of assessment tools are highly relevant to the intensive care unit (ICU). Team skills are important for maintaining safety in both domains, as multidisciplinary teams must work effectively under highly complex, stressful, and uncertain conditions. However, there are substantial differences in the nature of work and structure of teams in the ICU in comparison with those in aviation. While intensive care medicine may wish to use the advances made by the aviation industry for conceptualizing team skills and implementing team training programs, interventions must be tailored to the highly specific demands of the ICU.

Objective: There is a growing literature on the relationship between teamwork and patient outcomes in intensive care, providing new insights into the skills required for effective team performance. The purpose of this review is to consolidate the most robust findings from this research into an intensive care unit (ICU) team performance framework., Data Sources: Studies investigating teamwork within the ICU using PubMed, Science Direct, and Web of Knowledge databases., Study Selection: Studies investigating the relationship between aspects of teamwork and ICU outcomes, or studies testing factors that are found to influence team working in the ICU., Data Extraction: Teamwork behaviors associated with patient or staff-related outcomes in the ICU were identified., Data Synthesis: Teamwork behaviors were grouped according to the team process categories of "team communication," "team leadership," "team coordination," and "team decision making." A prototype framework explaining the team performance in the ICU was developed using these categories. The purpose of the framework is to consolidate the existing ICU teamwork literature and to guide the development and testing of interventions for improving teamwork., Conclusions: Effective teamwork is shown as crucial for providing optimal patient care in the ICU. In particular, team leadership seems vital for guiding the way in which ICU team members interact and coordinate with others.

Purpose of Review: Poor communication in critical care teams has been frequently shown as a contributing factor to adverse events. There is now a strong emphasis on identifying the communication skills that can contribute to, or protect against, preventable medical errors. This review considers communication research recently conducted in the intensive care unit and other acute domains., Recent Findings: Error studies in the intensive care unit have shown good communication to be crucial for ensuring patient safety. Interventions to improve communication in the intensive care unit have resulted in reduced reports of adverse events, and simulated emergency scenarios have shown effective communication to be correlated with improved technical performance. In other medical domains where communication is crucial for safety, the relationship between communication skills and error has been examined more closely, with highly detailed teamwork assessment tools being developed., Summary: Critical care teams perform many activities where effective communication is crucial for ensuring patient safety and reducing susceptibility to error. To develop valid team training and assessment tools for improving teamwork in the intensive care unit there is a requirement to better understand and identify the specific communication skills important for safety during the provision of intensive care medicine.

Background Antibiotics are extensively prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs), yet little is known about how antibiotic-related decisions are made in this setting. We explored how beliefs, perceptions and contextual factors influenced ICU clinicians' antibiotic prescribing. Methods We conducted 4 focus groups and 34 semistructured interviews with clinicians involved in antibiotic prescribing in four English ICUs. Focus groups explored factors influencing prescribing, whereas interviews examined decision-making processes using two clinical vignettes. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, applying the Necessity Concerns Framework. Results Clinicians' antibiotic decisions were influenced by their judgement of the necessity for prescribing/not prescribing, relative to their concerns about potential adverse consequences. Antibiotic necessity perceptions were strongly influenced by beliefs that antibiotics would protect patients from deterioration and themselves from the ethical and legal consequences of undertreatment. Clinicians also reported concerns about prescribing antibiotics. These generally centred on antimicrobial resistance; however, protecting the individual patient was prioritised over these societal concerns. Few participants identified antibiotic toxicity concerns as a key influencer. Clinical uncertainty often complicated balancing antibiotic necessity against concerns. Decisions to start or continue antibiotics often represented 'erring on the side of caution' as a protective response in uncertainty. This approach was reinforced by previous experiences of negative consequences ('being burnt') which motivated prescribing 'just in case' of an infection. Prescribing decisions were also context-dependent, exemplified by a lower perceived threshold to prescribe antibiotics out-of-hours, input from external team members and local prescribing norms. Conclusion Efforts to improve antibiotic stewardship should consider clinicians' desire to protect with a prescription. Rapid molecular microbiology, with appropriate communication, may diminish clinicians' fears of not prescribing or of using narrower-spectrum antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rapid molecular diagnostic tests to investigate the microbial aetiology of pneumonias may improve treatment and antimicrobial stewardship in intensive care units (ICUs). Clinicians' endorsement and uptake of these tests is crucial to maximise engagement; however, adoption may be impeded if users harbour unaddressed concerns or if device usage is incompatible with local practice. Accordingly, we strove to identify ICU clinicians' beliefs about molecular diagnostic tests for pneumonias before implementation at the point-of-care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 critical care doctors working in four ICUs in the United Kingdom. A clinical vignette depicting a fictitious patient with signs of pneumonia was used to explore clinicians' beliefs about the importance of molecular diagnostics and their concerns. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Clinicians' beliefs about molecular tests could be grouped into two categories: perceived potential of molecular diagnostics to improve antibiotic prescribing (Molecular Diagnostic Necessity) and concerns about how the test results could be implemented into practice (Molecular Diagnostic Concerns). Molecular Diagnostic Necessity stemmed from beliefs that positive results would facilitate targeted antimicrobial therapy; that negative results would signal the absence of a pathogen, and consequently that having the molecular diagnostic results would bolster clinicians' prescribing confidence. Molecular Diagnostic Concerns included unfamiliarity with the device's capabilities, worry that it would detect non-pathogenic bacteria, uncertainty whether it would fail to detect pathogens, and discomfort with withholding antibiotics until receiving molecular test results. Conclusions: Clinicians believed rapid molecular diagnostics for pneumonias were potentially important and were open to using them; however, they harboured concerns about the tests' capabilities and integration into clinical practice. Implementation strategies should bolster users' necessity beliefs while reducing their concerns; this can be accomplished by publicising the tests' purpose and benefits, identifying and addressing clinicians' misconceptions, establishing a trial period for first-hand familiarisation, and emphasising that, with a swift (e.g., 60–90 min) test, antibiotics can be started and refined after molecular diagnostic results become available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]