Determinants of Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Use by Primary Care Providers and Dementia Specialists.

BACKGROUND: The efficiencies of plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers could facilitate early AD diagnosis. Unfortunately, limited knowledge exists about whether and how they would be used by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare determinants of plasma AD biomarker use reported by primary care providers and dementia specialists. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with clinicians organized using Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory and analyzed using an iterative coding approach. PARTICIPANTS: The subjects were internal and family medicine, neurology, and geriatrics providers with varying degrees of expertise in dementia diagnosis and care. MAIN MEASURES: Factors influencing a clinician's decision to use or not use plasma AD biomarkers in clinical practice. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 30 clinicians (16 family or internal medicine providers, 8 geriatricians, and 6 neurologists). Fifteen were dementia specialists. Hesitance to use plasma AD biomarkers was due to perceived lack of effective treatments for AD, limited access to supports, and stigma. Plasma AD biomarkers would be more readily adopted by clinicians with dementia expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors will influence clinical use of plasma AD biomarkers. Some of them may inform the design of interventions to promote the effective and appropriate clinical translation of these tests.

Language in Bioethics: Beyond the Representational View.

Though assumptions about language underlie all bioethical work, the field has rarely partaken of theories of language. This article encourages a more linguistically engaged bioethics. We describe the tacit conception of language that is frequently upheld in bioethics-what we call the representational view, which sees language essentially as a means of description. We examine how this view has routed the field's theories and interventions down certain paths. We present an alternative model of language-the pragmatic view-and explore how it expands and clarifies traditional bioethical concerns. To lend concreteness, we apply the pragmatic view to a pervasive concept in bioethics and adjacent fields: decision making. We suggest that problems of the decision-making approach to bioethical issues are grounded in adherence to the representational view. Drawing on empirical work in surgery and critical care, we show how the pragmatic view productively reframes bioethical questions about how medical treatments are pursued.

Escalation and Withdrawal of Treatment for Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe decisions about the escalation and withdrawal of treatment for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Interventions premised on facilitating patient autonomy have proven problematic in guiding treatment decisions in intensive care units (ICUs). Calls have thus been made to better understand how decisions are made in critical care. ECMO is an important form of cardiac and respiratory support, but care on ECMO is characterized by prognostic uncertainty, varying time course, and high resource use. It remains unclear how decisions about treatment escalation and withdrawal should be made for patients on ECMO and what role families should play in these decisions. METHODS: We performed a focused ethnography in 2 cardiothoracic ICUs in 2 US academic hospitals. We conducted 380 hours of observation, 34 weekly interviews with families of 20 ECMO patients, and 13 interviews with unit clinicians from January to September 2018. Qualitative analysis used an iterative coding process. RESULTS: Following ECMO initiation, treatment was escalated as complications mounted until the patient either could be decannulated or interventional options were exhausted. Families were well-informed about treatment and prognosis but played minimal roles in shaping the trajectory of care. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion between clinicians and families about prognosis and goals was frequent but did not occasion decision-making moments. This study helps explain why communication interventions intended to maintain patient autonomy through facilitating surrogate participation in decisions have had limited impact. A more comprehensive understanding of upstream factors that predispose courses of critical care is needed.

Does Masked Interviewing Encourage Holistic Review in Residency Selection? A Mixed-Methods Study.

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019-2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants.

Thematic mapping of perioperative incident reporting data to relational coordination domains.

Communication failure is a common root cause of adverse clinical events. Problematic communication domains are difficult to decipher, and communication improvement strategies are scarce. This study compared perioperative incident reports (IR) identifying potential communication failures with the results of a contemporaneous peri-operative Relational Coordination (RC) survey. We hypothesised that IR-prevalent themes would map to areas-of-weakness identified in the RC survey. Perioperative IRs filed between 2018 and 2020 (n = 6,236) were manually reviewed to identify communication failures (n = 1049). The IRs were disaggregated into seven RC theory domains and compared with the RC survey. Report disaggregation ratings demonstrated a three-way inter-rater agreement of 91.2%. Of the 1,049 communication failure-related IRs, shared knowledge deficits (n = 479, 46%) or accurate communication (n = 465, 44%) were most frequently identified. Communication frequency failures (n = 3, 0.3%) were rarely coded. Comparatively, shared knowledge was the weakest domain in the RC survey, while communication frequency was the strongest, correlating well with our IR data. Linking IR with RC domains offers a novel approach to assessing the specific elements of communication failures with an acute care facility. This approach provides a deployable mechanism to trend intra- and inter-domain progress in communication success, and develop targeted interventions to mitigate against communication failure-related adverse events.

Understanding Contributors to Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Emergency Department Throughput Times: a Sequential Mixed Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring equitable care remains a critical issue for healthcare systems. Nationwide evidence highlights the persistence of healthcare disparities and the need for research-informed approaches for reducing them at the local level. OBJECTIVE: To characterize key contributors in racial/ethnic disparities in emergency department (ED) throughput times. DESIGN: We conducted a sequential mixed methods analysis to understand variations in ED care throughput times for patients eventually admitted to an emergency department at a single academic medical center from November 2017 to May 2018 (n=3152). We detailed patient progression from ED arrival to decision to admit and compared racial/ethnic differences in time intervals from electronic medical record time-stamp data. We then estimated the relationships between race/ethnicity and ED throughput times, adjusting for several patient-level variables and ED-level covariates. These quantitative analyses informed our qualitative study design, which included observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and physicians. KEY RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black as compared to non-Hispanic White patients waited significantly longer during the time interval from arrival to the physician's decision to admit, even after adjustment for several ED-level and patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables (Beta (average minutes) (SE): 16.35 (5.8); p value=.005). Qualitative findings suggest that the manner in which providers communicate, advocate, and prioritize patients may contribute to such disparities. When the race/ethnicity of provider and patient differed, providers were more likely to interrupt patients, ignore their requests, and make less eye contact. Conversely, if the race/ethnicity of provider and patient were similar, providers exhibited a greater level of advocacy, such as tracking down patient labs or consultants. Physicians with no significant ED throughput disparities articulated objective criteria such as triage scores for prioritizing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the importance of (1) understanding how our communication style and care may differ by race/ethnicity; and (2) taking advantage of structured processes designed to equalize care.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. METHODS: This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. RESULTS: The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety.

Content and Communication of Inpatient Family Visitation Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sequential Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient health care facilities restricted inpatient visitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no existing evidence of how they communicated these policies to the public nor the impact of their communication choices on public perception. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe patterns of inpatient visitation policies during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States and the communication of these policies to the general public, as well as to identify communication strategies that maximize positive impressions of the facility despite visitation restrictions. METHODS: We conducted a sequential, exploratory, mixed methods study including a qualitative analysis of COVID-19 era visitation policies published on Pennsylvania-based facility websites, as captured between April 30 and May 20, 2020 (ie, during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States). We also conducted a factorial survey-based experiment to test how key elements of hospitals' visitation policy communication are associated with individuals' willingness to seek care in October 2020. For analysis of the policies, we included all inpatient facilities in Pennsylvania. For the factorial experiment, US adults were drawn from internet research panels. The factorial survey-based experiment presented composite policies that varied in their justification for restricted visitation, the degree to which the facility expressed ownership of the policy, and the inclusion of family-centered care support plans. Our primary outcome was participants' willingness to recommend the hypothetical facility using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: We identified 104 unique policies on inpatient visitation from 363 facilities' websites. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the policies was 14.2. Most policies prohibited family presence (99/104, 95.2%). Facilities justified the restricted visitation policies on the basis of community protection (59/104, 56.7%), authorities' guidance or regulations (34/104, 32.7%), or scientific rationale (23/104, 22.1%). A minority (38/104, 36.5%) addressed how restrictive visitation may impair family-centered care. Most of the policies analyzed used passive voice to communicate restrictions. A total of 1321 participants completed the web-based survey. Visitation policy elements significantly associated with willingness to recommend the facility included justifications based on community protection (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.24-1.68) or scientific rationale (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51), rather than those based on a governing authority. The facility expressed a high degree of ownership over the decision (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.29), rather than a low degree of ownership; and inclusion of family-centered care support plans (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.51-3.12), rather than no such support. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems can immediately improve public receptiveness of restrictive visitation policies by emphasizing community protection, ownership over the facility's policy, and promoting family-centered care.

Nephrology in the Academic Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study of Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between nephrology consultants and intensive care unit (ICU) teams is important in light of the high incidence of acute kidney injury in today's ICUs. Although there is considerable debate about how nephrology consultants and ICU teams should collaborate, communicative dynamics between the 2 parties remain poorly understood. This article describes interactions between nephrology consultants and ICU teams in the academic medical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Focused ethnography using semi-structured interviews and participant observation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to enroll nephrologists, nephrology fellows, and ICU practitioners across several roles collaborating in 3 ICUs (a medical ICU, a surgical ICU, and a cardiothoracic surgical ICU) of a large urban US academic medical center. Participant observation (150 hours) and semi-structured interviews (35) continued until theoretical saturation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview and fieldnote transcripts were coded in an iterative team-based process. Explanation was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: Nephrology consultants and surgical ICU teams exhibited discordant preferences about the aggressiveness of renal replacement therapy based on different understandings of physiology, goals of care, and acuity. Collaborative difficulties resulting from this discordance led to nephrology consultants often serving as dialysis proceduralists rather than diagnosticians in surgical ICUs and to consultants sometimes choosing not to express disagreements about clinical care because of the belief that doing so would not lead to changes in the course of care. LIMITATIONS: Aspects of this single-site study of an academic medical center may not be generalizable to other clinical settings and samples. Surgical team perspectives would provide further detail about nephrology consultation in surgical ICUs. The effects of findings on patient care were not examined. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in approach between internal medicine-trained nephrologists and anesthesia- and surgery-trained intensivists and surgeons led to collaborative difficulties in surgical ICUs. These findings stress the need for medical teamwork research and intervention to address issues stemming from disciplinary siloing rooted in long-term socialization to different disciplinary practices.

The role of the interview in residency selection: A mixed-methods study.

CONTEXT: Residency programmes invest considerable time and resources in candidate interviews as a result of their perceived ability to reveal important social traits. However, studies examining the ability of interviews to predict resident performance have shown mixed findings, and the role of the interview in candidate evaluation remains unclear. This mixed-methods study, conducted in an anaesthesiology residency programme at a large academic medical centre, examined how interviews contributed to candidate assessment and whether the addition of behavioural questions to interviews altered their role in the evaluation process. METHODS: During the 2018-2019 residency selection season in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at the University of Pennsylvania, independent ratings for each interviewee were collected from faculty interviewers. Consensus ratings subsequently established by committee were also collected. Committee meetings were audiorecorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Behavioural questions were integrated into half of interview days. Ratings of candidates interviewed on behavioural question days were compared statistically with those of candidates interviewed on non-behavioural question days. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis showed that interviewers heavily emphasised candidates' application files in evaluating the interviews. Interviewers focused on candidates' academic records and favoured candidates whose interview behaviours were consistent with their applications and whose applications demonstrated similarities to interviewers' traits. The addition of behavioural questions demonstrated little ability to alter these dynamics. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences in candidate rating outcomes between behavioural and non-behavioural interviewing days, whereas a higher medical school rating and higher score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 were associated with a more favourable consensus rating. CONCLUSIONS: Residency candidates' application files predisposed interviewers' experience and evaluation of interviews, preventing the interviews from providing discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities, even when behavioural questions were included. In the continued effort to perform well-rounded assessments of residency candidates, further research and reflection on the role of interviewing in evaluation are necessary.

Surgical Consultation as Social Process: Implications for Shared Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study examines surgical consultation as a social process and assesses its alignment with assumptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SDM stresses the importance of patient preferences and rigorous discussion of therapeutic risks/benefits based on these preferences. However, empirical studies have highlighted discrepancies between SDM and realities of surgical decision making. Qualitative research can inform understanding of the decision-making process and allow for granular assessment of the nature and causes of these discrepancies. METHODS: We observed consultations between 3 general surgeons and 45 patients considering undergoing 1 of 2 preference-sensitive elective operations: (1) hernia repair, or (2) cholecystectomy. These patients and surgeons also participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: By the time of the consultation, patients and surgeons were predisposed toward certain decisions by preceding events occurring elsewhere. During the visit, surgeons had differential ability to arbitrate surgical intervention and construct the severity of patients' conditions. These upstream dynamics frequently displaced the centrality of the risk/benefit-based consent discussion. CONCLUSION: The influence of events preceding consultation suggests that decision-making models should account for broader spatiotemporal spans. Given surgeons' authority to define patients' conditions and control service provision, SDM may be premised on an overestimation of patients' power to alter the course of decision making once in a specialist's office. Considering the subordinate role of the risk/benefit discussion in many surgical decisions, it will be important to study if and how the social process of decision making is altered by SDM-oriented decision aids that foreground this discussion.

Failure to Debrief after Critical Events in Anesthesia Is Associated with Failures in Communication during the Event.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: Failure to debrief after critical events is common among anesthesia trainees and likely anesthesia teams. Communication breakdowns are associated with a high rate of the failure to debrief. BACKGROUND: Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. The authors' objective was to understand barriers to debriefing, characterize quantifiable patterns and qualitative themes, and learn potential solutions through a mixed-methods study of actual critical events experienced by anesthesia personnel. METHODS: At a large academic medical center, anesthesiology residents and a small number of attending anesthesiologists were audited and/or interviewed for the occurrence and patterns of debriefing after critical events during their recent shift, including operating room crises and disruptive behavior. Patterns of the events, including event locations and event types, were quantified. A comparison was done of the proportion of cases debriefed based on whether the event contained a critical communication breakdown. Qualitative analysis, using an abductive approach, was performed on the interviews to add insight to quantitative findings. RESULTS: During a 1-yr period, 89 critical events were identified. The overall debriefing rate was 49% (44 of 89). Nearly half of events occurred outside the operating room. Events included crisis events (e.g., cardiac arrest, difficult airway requiring an urgent surgical airway), disruptive behavior, and critical communication breakdowns. Events containing critical communication breakdowns were strongly associated with not being debriefed (64.4% [29 of 45] not debriefed in events with a communication breakdown vs. 36.4% [16 of 44] not debriefed in cases without a communication breakdown; P = 0.008). Interview responses qualitatively demonstrated that lapses in communication were associated with enduring confusion that could inhibit or shape the content of discussions between involved providers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the value of proximal debriefing to reducing provider burnout and improving wellness and learning, failure to debrief after critical events can be common among anesthesia trainees and perhaps anesthesia teams. Modifiable interpersonal factors, such as communication breakdowns, were associated with the failure to debrief.

Inpatient Pain Medication Administration: Understanding the Process and Its Delays.

BACKGROUND: A patient's impression of quality of care is strongly influenced by pain management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We sought to understand the process of pro re nata (PRN) pain medication administration through direct observation and use of timestamped data from the electronic medical record (EMR). The total time from nurse notification to administration was compared between PRN narcotics, non-narcotic pain, and nonpain medications. RESULTS: We noted two pathways: patient-initiated requests and nurses preemptively asking about pain. We observed 44 instances of PRN medication administration (33 narcotics, 5 non-narcotics, 6 nonpain). Patients waited a median of 14.5 min for all PRN medications, interquartile range 6.5, 36. There was no significant difference in times for the patient-initiated pathway (n = 39, median 15 min, [7, 40]) compared to preemptive rounding (n = 5, 10 min [5, 30]), P = 0.88. Narcotics (median 14 min, [5, 30]) did not take longer than non-narcotic (11, [10, 88]) or nonpain medications (19.5, [11, 40]), P = 0.75. Electronic medical record data included only the time from medication retrieval to administration, which took approximately 5 min for all medications. CONCLUSIONS: Medication administration is complex, comprising multiple vital steps. The findings of this study suggest opportunities for process improvement that may enhance the experience and overall satisfaction of the surgical patient.

Physician Engagement in Malpractice Risk Reduction: A UPHS Case Study.

BACKGROUND: The University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) implemented a risk reduction strategy in response to high malpractice costs and the broader implications these trends had for patient safety and quality. A key component of this strategy was the Risk Reduction Initiative (RRI), which uses a bottom-up approach to actively engage physicians in risk mitigation and malpractice reduction within their respective departments. METHODS: The value of clinical communities in achieving common goals has been previously recognized in quality improvement efforts. Using a physician-directed approach, the RRI program requires each clinical department to propose and execute an intervention in response to prior malpractice claims data or recognition of an area of high risk. Based on the success of the intervention, clinical departments were eligible to receive a financial rebate for use in future quality improvement projects. RESULTS: Clinical departments have led the development and implementation of interventions that have shown demonstrable improvements in quality and safety and thereby received full financial rebates. On a system level, the inclusion of physicians in risk mitigation efforts has resulted in significant benefits from both quality improvement and financial standpoints. The number of malpractice claims and malpractice cost have decreased since the inception of the program. CONCLUSION: Since the program inception, 250 proposals have been submitted and $14 million in rebates have been awarded. Although it is difficult to directly measure the combined impact of these bottom-up, physician-directed interventions, empowering frontline physicians to become actively involved in risk mitigation is a promising method for reducing malpractice claims and costs.

How does training in anesthesia residency shape residents' approaches to patient care handoffs? A single-center qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Handoffs are a complex procedure whose success relies on mutual discussion rather than simple information transfer. Particularly among trainees, handoffs present major opportunities for medical error. Previous research has explored best practices and pitfalls in general handoff education but has not discussed barriers specific to anesthesiology residents. This study characterizes the experiences of residents in anesthesiology as they learn handoff technique in order to inform strategies for teaching this important component of perioperative care. METHODS: In 2016, we conducted a semi-structured interview study of 30 anesthesia residents across all three postgraduate years at a major academic hospital. Interviews were coded by two coders using a grounded theory approach and an iterative process designed to enhance reliability and validity. RESULTS: Residents cited lack of consistency as a major impediment to proper handoff education. They found the impact of lectures and written materials to be limited. The level of guidance and direction they received from one-to-one attendings was described as highly variable. Residents' comfort in executing handoffs was heavily dependent on location and situation. They felt that coordination among the parties involved in the handoff was difficult to achieve, causing confusion about the importance of handoffs as well as proper protocol. Finally, residents offered opinions on when handoff education should occur during the residency and had several recommendations for its improving, including standardization of key handoff topics. CONCLUSIONS: In a single center study of anesthesiology resident handoff education, residents exhibited confusion related to a perceived disconnect between the stated importance of effective handoffs and a lack of consensus on proper handoff technique. Standardization of curriculum and framing expectations has the potential to enhance resident handoff training in academic anesthesia departments.

Reconsidering the Language of Serious Illness.

This Viewpoint expresses how use of certain language complicates decision-making for critically ill patients, and it highlights alternative phrasing for effective communication.