Search

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a method to evaluate hearing aids in everyday life that uses repeated smartphone-based questionnaires to assess a situation as it happens. Although being ecologically valid and avoiding memory bias, this method may be prone to selection biases due to questionnaires being skipped or the phone not being carried along in certain situations. Purpose This investigation analyzed which situations are underrepresented in questionnaire responses and physically measured objective EMA data (e.g., sound level), and how such underrepresentation may depend on different triggers. Method In an EMA study, 20 subjects with hearing impairment provided daily information on reasons for missed data, that is, skipped questionnaires or missing connections between their phone and hearing aids. Results Participants often deliberately did not bring the study phone to social situations or skipped questionnaires because they considered it inappropriate, for example, during church service or when engaging in conversation. They answered fewer questions in conversations with multiple partners and were more likely to postpone questionnaires when not in quiet environments. Conclusion Data for social situations will likely be underrepresented in EMA. However, these situations are particularly important for the evaluation of hearing aids, as individuals with hearing impairment often have difficulties communicating in noisy situations. Thus, it is vital to optimize the design of the study to find a balance between avoiding memory bias and enabling subjects to report retrospectively on situations where phone usage may be difficult. The implications for several applications of EMA are discussed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12746849

Background: Prior studies have reported higher in-hospital survival with prompt defibrillation and epinephrine treatment in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Whether this survival benefit persists after discharge is unknown. Methods: We linked data from a national IHCA registry with Medicare files and identified 36 961 patients ≥65 years of age with an IHCA at 517 hospitals between 2000 and 2011. Patients with IHCA caused by pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were stratified by prompt (≤2 minutes) versus delayed (>2 minutes) defibrillation, whereas patients with IHCA caused by asystole or pulseless electric activity were stratified by prompt (≤5 minutes) versus delayed (>5 minutes) epinephrine treatment. The association between prompt treatment and long-term survival for each rhythm type was assessed with multivariable hierarchical modified Poisson regression models. Results: Of 8119 patients with an IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, the rate of 1-year survival was higher in those treated with prompt defibrillation than with delayed defibrillation (25.7% [1466 of 5714] versus 15.5% [373 of 2405]; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32–1.69; P P P P =0.02), but this survival benefit was no longer present at 3 years (3.5% versus 2.9%; adjusted RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.95–1.45; P =0.15) and at 5 years (2.3% versus 1.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.88–1.58; P =0.27). Conclusions: Prompt defibrillation for IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was associated with higher rates of long-term survival throughout 5 years of follow-up, whereas prompt epinephrine treatment for asystole/pulseless electric activity was associated with greater survival at 1 year but not at 3 or 5 years. By quantifying the greater survival associated with timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration, these findings provide important insights into the durability of survival benefits for 2 process-of-care measures in current resuscitation guidelines.

Review of recent evidence with translation to practice for the advanced practice nurse (APN) role is presented using a case study module for "Return Visits to the Emergency Department: The Patient Perspective." This qualitative inquiry performed 60 semistructured interviews of patients who returned to the emergency department within 9 days of their primary visit for the same complaint. Patients most often returned because of concerns that their initial visit did not adequately address their complaint, and they needed assurance from providers that their clinical condition was not a serious health concern. Patients also expressed a lack of contact with a provider between the 2 visits either to answer questions or to address ongoing concerns. This study highlights the important role of the APN in providing quality care, reassurance, and communication related to follow-up care.