Search

ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of a novel survey, the advance care planning (ACP) Engagement Survey, in various healthcare settings.SettingA target sample of 50 patients from each of primary care, hospital, cancer care and dialysis care settings.ParticipantsA convenience sample of patients without cognitive impairment who could speak and read English was recruited. Patients 50 and older were eligible in primary care; patients 80 and older or 55 and older with clinical markers of advanced chronic disease were recruited in hospital; patients aged 19 and older were recruited in cancer and renal dialysis centres.OutcomesWe assessed feasibility, acceptability and clinical sensibility of the ACP Engagement Survey using a 6-point scale. The ACP Engagement Survey measures ACP processes (knowledge, contemplation, self-efficacy and readiness) on 5-point Likert scales and actions (yes/no).Results196 patients (38-96 years old, 50.5% women) participated. Mean (±SD) time to administer was 48.8±19.6 min. Mean acceptability scores ranged from 3.2±1.3 in hospital to 4.7±0.9 in primary care, and mean relevance ranged from 3.5±1.0 in hospital to 4.9±0.9 in dialysis centres (p

Abstract Injuries to patients by the healthcare system (i.e., adverse events) are common and their impact on individuals and systems is considerable. Over the last decade, extensive efforts have been made worldwide to improve patient safety. Given the complexity and extent of the activities required to address the issue, coordinating and organizing them at a national level is likely beneficial. Whereas some capacity and expertise already exist in Israel, there is a considerable gap that needs to be filled. In this paper two countries, Canada and Israel, are examined and some of the essential steps for any country are considered. Possible immediate next steps for Israel are suggested.

Abstract Background Handover (or 'handoff') is the exchange of information between health professionals that accompanies the transfer of patient care. This process can result in adverse events. Handover 'best practices', with emphasis on standardization, have been widely promoted. However, these recommendations are based mostly on expert opinion and research on medical trainees. By examining handover communication of experienced physicians, we aim to inform future research, education and quality improvement. Thus, our objective is to describe handover communication patterns used by attending critical care physicians in an academic centre and to compare them with currently popular, standardized schemes for handover communication. Methods Prospective, observational study using video recording in an academic intensive care unit in Ontario, Canada. Forty individual patient handovers were randomly selected out of 10 end-of-week handover sessions of attending physicians. Two coders independently reviewed handover transcripts documenting elements of three communication schemes: SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations); SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan); and a standard medical admission note. Frequency and extent of questions asked by incoming physicians were measured as well. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics. Results Mean (± standard deviation) duration of patient-specific handovers was 2 min 58 sec (± 57 sec). The majority of handovers' content consisted of recent and current patient status. The remainder included physicians' interpretations and advice. Questions posed by the incoming physicians accounted for 5.8% (± 3.9%) of the handovers' content. Elements of all three standardized communication schemes appeared repeatedly throughout the handover dialogs with no consistent pattern. For example, blocks of SOAP's Assessment appeared 5.2 (± 3.0) times in patient handovers; they followed Objective blocks in only 45.9% of the opportunities and preceded Plan in just 21.8%. Certain communication elements were occasionally absent. For example, SBAR's Recommendation and admission note information about the patient's Past Medical History were absent from 22 (55.0%) and 20 (50.0%), respectively, of patient handovers. Conclusions Clinical handover practice of faculty-level critical care physicians did not conform to any of the three predefined structuring schemes. Further research is needed to examine whether alternative approaches to handover communication can be identified and to identify features of high-quality handover communication.

Purpose: Non-essential blood testing in the acute care setting can be a prominent source of morbidity, patient discomfort, increased workload for the healthcare provider, and wasteful spending. The magnitude of such non-essential blood testing has not been well described. We aimed to measure the extent of unnecessary blood testing in a 33-bed intensive care unit (ICU) at a tertiary-care teaching hospital in Ontario, Canada.Methods: Over a period of four weeks, all ICU attending physicians were asked to select, from a comprehensive list, blood tests that they deemed essential to the appropriate care for each of their patients on the following day. The actual tests processed on the following day were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used to determine what proportion of all processed tests were deemed essential blood tests. The association between patient characteristics and the total cost of unnecessary tests was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Spearman correlation coefficient, as appropriate.Results: Nine attending physicians provided input for a total of 81 patient days. In 65 (80%) of these days, at least one test was considered non-essential. Physicians deemed only 338 (48.7%) of 694 processed blood tests as essential, which amounted to $2,243.41 (46.0%) out of an overall cost of $4,882.11. Patients' age, sex, mechanical ventilation status, and treatment with vasoactive drugs on the study day were not associated with the number of non-essential tests.Conclusions: Attending physicians deemed a substantial proportion of the blood tests processed in a tertiary care ICU setting as unnecessary. Furthermore, the non-essential tests incurred substantial additional cost. Further work is required to gain a better understanding of the underlying factors contributing to these wasteful practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The exponential growth in computing power and the increasing digitization of information have substantially advanced the machine learning (ML) research field. However, ML algorithms are often considered "black boxes," and this fosters distrust. In medical domains, in which mistakes can result in fatal outcomes, practitioners may be especially reluctant to trust ML algorithms., Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the effect of user-interface design features on intensivists' trust in an ML-based clinical decision support system., Methods: A total of 47 physicians from critical care specialties were presented with 3 patient cases of bacteremia in the setting of an ML-based simulation system. Three conditions of the simulation were tested according to combinations of information relevancy and interactivity. Participants' trust in the system was assessed by their agreement with the system's prediction and a postexperiment questionnaire. Linear regression models were applied to measure the effects., Results: Participants' agreement with the system's prediction did not differ according to the experimental conditions. However, in the postexperiment questionnaire, higher information relevancy ratings and interactivity ratings were associated with higher perceived trust in the system (P<.001 for both). The explicit visual presentation of the features of the ML algorithm on the user interface resulted in lower trust among the participants (P=.05)., Conclusions: Information relevancy and interactivity features should be considered in the design of the user interface of ML-based clinical decision support systems to enhance intensivists' trust. This study sheds light on the connection between information relevancy, interactivity, and trust in human-ML interaction, specifically in the intensive care unit environment., (© Omer Katzburg, Michael Roimi, Amit Frenkel, Roy Ilan, Yuval Bitan. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org).)