Search

OBJECTIVES:. We sought to identify and prioritize improvement strategies that Critical Care Medicine (CCM) programs could use to inform and advance gender equity among physicians in CCM. DESIGN:. This study involved three sequential phases: 1) scoping review that identified strategies to improve gender equity in all medical specialties; 2) modified consensus process with 48 CCM stakeholders to rate and rank identified strategies; and 3) in-person stakeholder meeting to refine strategies and discuss facilitators and barriers to their implementation. SETTING:. CCM. SUBJECTS:. CCM stakeholders (physicians, researchers, and decision-makers; mutually inclusive). INTERVENTIONS:. None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:. We identified 190 unique strategies from 416 articles. Strategies were grouped thematically into 20 categories across four overarching pillars of equity: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Participants prioritized 22 improvement strategies for implementation in CCM. The top-rated strategy from each pillar included: 1) nominate gender diverse candidates for faculty positions and prestigious opportunities (equitable access); 2) mandate training in unconscious bias and equitable treatment for committee (e.g., hiring, promotion) members (equitable participation); 3) ensure equitable starting salaries regardless of sex or gender (equitable reimbursement); and, 4) conduct 360° evaluations of leaders (including their direct work circle of supervisors, peers, and subordinates) through a diversity lens (equitable culture). Interprofessional collaboration, leadership, and local champions were identified as key enablers for implementation. CONCLUSIONS:. We identified stakeholder-prioritized strategies that can be used to inform and enhance gender equity among physicians in CCM under four overarching equity pillars: access, participation, reimbursement, and culture. Implementation approaches should include education, policy creation, and measurement, and reporting.

Background Clinical guidelines suggest that routine assessment, treatment, and prevention of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) is essential to improving patient outcomes as delirium is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Despite the well-established improvements on patient outcomes, adherence to PAD guidelines is poor in community intensive care units (ICU). This quality improvement (QI) project aims to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD management in a Canadian community ICU and to describe the experience of a Canadian community hospital in conducting a QI project.Methods A ten-member PAD advisory committee was formed to develop and implement the intervention. The intervention consisted of a multidisciplinary rounds script, poster, interviews, visual reminders, educational modules, pamphlet and video. The 4-week intervention targeted nurses, family members, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team. An uncontrolled, before-and-after study methodology was used. Adherence to PAD assessment guidelines by nurses was measured over a 6-week pre-intervention and over a 6-week post-intervention periods.Results Data on 430 and 406 patient-days (PD) were available for analysis during the pre- and post- intervention periods, respectively. The intervention did not improve the proportion of PD with guideline compliance to the assessment of pain (23.4% vs. 22.4%, p=0.80), agitation (42.9% vs. 38.9%, p=0.28), nor delirium (35.2% vs. 29.6%, p=0.10) by nurses.Discussion The implementation of a multifaceted and multidisciplinary intervention on PAD assessment did not result in significant improvements in guideline adherence in a community ICU. Barriers to knowledge translation are apparent at multiple levels including the personal level (low completion rates on educational modules), interventional level (under-collection of data), and organisational level (coinciding with hospital accreditation education). Our next steps include reintroduction of education modules using organisation approved platforms, updating existing ICU policy, updating admission order sets, and conducting audit and feedback.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150671.].

BACKGROUND:Patients with serious illness, and their families, state that better communication and decision-making with healthcare providers is a high priority to improve the quality of end-of-life care. Numerous communication tools to assist patients, family members, and clinicians in end-of-life decision-making have been published, but their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES:To determine, amongst adults in ambulatory care settings, the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making on completion of advance care planning. METHODS:We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized intervention studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each of the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS:Sixty-seven studies, including 46 RCTs, were found. The majority evaluated communication tools in older patients (age >50) with no specific medical condition, but many specifically evaluated populations with cancer, lung, heart, neurologic, or renal disease. Most studies compared the use of communication tools against usual care, but several compared the tools to less-intensive advance care planning tools. The use of structured communication tools increased: the frequency of advance care planning discussions/discussions about advance directives (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.25-4.26, p = 0.007, low quality evidence) and the completion of advance directives (ADs) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.43-2.59, p

Background: Practicing healthcare professionals and graduates exiting training programs are often ill-equipped to facilitate important discussions about end-of-life care with patients and their families. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions aimed at providing healthcare professionals with training in end-of-life communication skills, compared to usual curriculum. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the date of inception to July 2014 for randomized control trials (RCT) and prospective observational studies of educational training interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills. To be eligible, interventions had to provide communication skills training related to end-of-life decision making; other interventions (e.g. breaking bad news, providing palliation) were excluded. Our primary outcomes were self-efficacy, knowledge and end-of-life communication scores with standardized patient encounters. Sufficiently similar studies were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Of 5727 candidate articles, 20 studies (6 RCTs, 14 Observational) were included in this review. Compared to usual teaching, educational interventions to train healthcare professionals in end-of-life communication skills were associated with greater self-efficacy (8 studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.57;95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.75; P < 0.001; very low quality evidence), more knowledge (4 studies, SMD 0.76;95 % CI 0.40-1.12; p < 0.001; low quality evidence), and improvements in communication scores (8 studies, SMD 0.69; 95 % CI 0.41- 0.96; p < 0.001; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether these educational interventions affect patient-level outcomes. Conclusion: Very low to low quality evidence suggests that end-of-life communication training may improve healthcare professionals' self-efficacy, knowledge, and EoL communication scores compared to usual teaching. Further studies comparing two active educational interventions are recommended with a continued focus on contextually relevant high-level outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For many patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), preferences for end-of-life care are unknown, and clinicians and substitute decision-makers are required to make decisions about the goals of care on their behalf. We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making, compared to usual care, upon the number of documented goals of care discussions, documented code status, and decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatments, in adult patients admitted to the ICU.Methods: We searched multiple databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, and Cochrane from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles, assessed eligibility, verified data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the tool described by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Pooled estimates of effect (relative risk, standardized mean difference, or mean difference), were calculated where sufficient data existed. GRADE was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.Results: We screened 5785 abstracts and reviewed the full text of 424 articles, finding 168 eligible articles, including 19 studies in the ICU setting. The use of communication tools increased documentation of goals-of-care discussions (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.55, 7.75, p = 0.020, very low-quality evidence), but did not have an effect on code status documentation (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96, 1.10, p = 0.540, low-quality evidence) or decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89, 1.08, p = 0.70, low-quality evidence). The use of such tools was associated with a decrease in multiple measures of health care resource utilization, including duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -1.9 days, 95% CI -3.26, -0.54, p = 0.006, very low-quality evidence), length of ICU stay (MD -1.11 days, 95% CI -2.18, -0.03, p = 0.04, very low-quality evidence), and health care costs (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.5, -0.15, p < 0.001, very low-quality evidence).Conclusions: Structured communication tools may improve documentation of EOL decision making and may result in lower resource use. The supporting evidence is low to very low in quality. Further high-quality randomized studies of simple communication interventions are needed to determine whether structured, rather than ad hoc, approaches to end-of-life decision-making improve patient-level, family-level, and system-level outcomes.Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014012913. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]