Search

Objectives: This study examined the acceptance, feasibility, and preliminary effects of a guided self-management intervention using video delivery and a telephone coach on anxiety and activity engagement., Method: Ten Veterans aged 60 years or older with anxiety disorders determined by Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 th edition (SCID-5) at baseline visit participated in this non-randomized study examining a 4-week guided self-management intervention for anxiety. Feasibility was examined using participation engagement with the intervention. Measures of anxiety (Geriatric Anxiety Scale, PROMIS Anxiety Scale, Anxiety Control Questionnaire), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item), and activity participation (modified Activity Card Sort) administered at baseline and final (week 8) visit provided estimates of preliminary intervention effects. The Geriatric Anxiety Scale also was administered by phone at week 4. Participants completed a semi-structured qualitative interview at the final visit, which provided information about the acceptability, benefits of intervention, and barriers to engagement., Results: All participants ( N  = 10) reported that the intervention somewhat or completely met their expectations, demonstrating intervention acceptability. Intervention completers ( n  = 9) experienced reduced anxiety over the first 4 weeks, alongside significant improvements in anxiety control and personalized activity goals across 8 weeks. However, anxiety symptoms tended to return to baseline at follow-up. Participants identified the relaxation videos and promotion of a daily relaxation routine as the most helpful intervention components., Conclusions: Findings indicate that the intervention may improve activity participation and reduce anxiety. Thus, guided self-management interventions show promise for reducing distress and maintaining engagement later in life.

Background: Brief, stand-up meetings known as huddles may improve clinical care, but knowledge about huddle implementation and effectiveness at the frontlines is fragmented and setting specific. This work provides a comprehensive overview of huddles used in diverse health care settings, examines the empirical support for huddle effectiveness, and identifies knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research., Methods: A scoping review was completed by searching the databases PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and OvidSP for studies published in English from inception to May 31, 2019. Eligible studies described huddles that (1) took place in a clinical or medical setting providing health care patient services, (2) included frontline staff members, (3) were used to improve care quality, and (4) were studied empirically. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; seven reviewers independently abstracted data from full texts., Results: Of 2,185 identified studies, 158 met inclusion criteria. The majority (67.7%) of studies described huddles used to improve team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Huddles positively impacted team process outcomes in 67.7% of studies, including improvements in efficiency, process-based functioning, and communication across clinical roles (64.4%); situational awareness and staff perceptions of safety and safety climate (44.6%); and staff satisfaction and engagement (29.7%). Almost half of studies (44.3%) reported huddles positively impacting clinical care outcomes such as patients receiving timely and/or evidence-based assessments and care (31.4%); decreased medical errors and adverse drug events (24.3%); and decreased rates of other negative outcomes (20.0%)., Discussion: Huddles involving frontline staff are an increasingly prevalent practice across diverse health care settings. Huddles are generally interdisciplinary and aimed at improving team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Data from the scoping review point to the effectiveness of huddles at improving work and team process outcomes and indicate the positive impact of huddles can extend beyond processes to include improvements in clinical outcomes., Study Registration: This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework on 18 January 2019 ( https://osf.io/bdj2x/ )., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objective: This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the current evidence on huddles in healthcare settings involving frontline staff., Introduction: Team-based models are gaining prominence as the preferred method for delivering coordinated, cost-effective, high-quality health care. Huddles are a powerful method for building relationships among frontline staff members. Currently, no reviews have described huddles used among frontline staff in clinical settings. There is therefore a need to identify gaps in the literature on evidence informing this practice for a greater understanding of the resources available for frontline staff to implement huddles., Inclusion Criteria: This scoping review will consider qualitative studies, experimental and quasi-experimental studies, analytic observational studies and descriptive cross-sectional studies that explore the use of frontline staff huddles to improve quality of care in a clinical setting., Methods: An initial limited search of PubMed and CINAHL Plus with Full Text will be performed, followed by analysis of the title, abstract and MeSH used to describe the article. Second, searches of PubMed, EBSCOhost and ProQuest will be conducted, followed by searches in reference lists of all articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Studies published in English from inception to the present will be considered. Retrieved papers will be screened for inclusion by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted and presented in tabular form and a narrative summary that align with the review's objective.