Investigating the 2016 surge in firearm violence in Illinois, USA, through community-based organisations: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Illinois experienced a historic firearm violence surge in 2016 with a decline to baseline rates in 2018. This study aimed to understand this 2016 surge through the direct accounts of violence prevention community-based organisations (CBOs) in Illinois. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 20 representatives from 13 CBOs from the south and west sides of greater Chicago metropolitan area. Interviews were audio recorded, coded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: We identified lack of government-derived infrastructure and systemic poverty as the central themes of Illinois's 2016 firearm violence surge. Participants highlighted the Illinois Budget Impasse halted funding for violence prevention efforts, leading to 2016's violence. This occurred in the context of a strained relationship with the criminal justice system, where disengagement from police and mistrust in the justice system led victims and families to seek justice outside of the judicial system. Participants emphasised that systemic poverty and the obliteration of community support structures led to overwhelming desperation, which, in turn, increased risky behaviours perceived as necessary for survival. Participants disproportionately identified that this impacted the young people in their communities. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of government-derived infrastructure and systemic poverty were the central themes of the 2016 firearm violence surge. The insights gained from the 2016 surge are applicable to understanding both current and future surges. CBOs focused on violence prevention offer insights into the context and conditions fuelling surges in the epidemic of violence.

Barriers and Facilitators to End-of-Life Care Delivery in ICUs: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand frontline ICU clinician's perceptions of end-of-life care delivery in the ICU. DESIGN: Qualitative observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Seven ICUs across three hospitals in an integrated academic health system. SUBJECTS: ICU clinicians (physicians [critical care, palliative care], advanced practice providers, nurses, social workers, chaplains). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 27 semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed. The research team reviewed all transcripts inductively to develop a codebook. Thematic analysis was conducted through coding, category formulation, and sorting for data reduction to identify central themes. Deductive reasoning facilitated data category formulation and thematic structuring anchored on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model identified that work systems (people, environment, tools, tasks) lead to processes and outcomes. Four themes were barriers or facilitators to end-of-life care. First, work system barriers delayed end-of-life care communication among clinicians as well as between clinicians and families. For example, over-reliance on palliative care people in handling end-of-life discussions prevented timely end-of-life care discussions with families. Second, clinician-level variability existed in end-of-life communication tasks. For example, end-of-life care discussions varied greatly in process and outcomes depending on the clinician leading the conversation. Third, clinician-family-patient priorities or treatment goals were misaligned. Conversely, regular discussion and joint decisions facilitated higher familial confidence in end-of-life care delivery process. These detailed discussions between care teams aligned priorities and led to fewer situations where patients/families received conflicting information. Fourth, clinician moral distress occurred from providing nonbeneficial care. Interviewees reported standardized end-of-life care discussion process incorporated by the people in the work system including patient, family, and clinicians were foundational to delivering end-of-life care that reduced both patient and family suffering, as well as clinician moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized work system communication tasks may improve end-of life discussion processes between clinicians and families.

Characterizing re-triage guidelines: A scoping review of states' rules and regulations.

BACKGROUND: State guidelines for re-triage, or emergency inter-facility transfer, have never been characterized across the United States. METHODS: All 50 states' Department of Health and/or Trauma System websites were reviewed for publicly available re-triage guidelines within their rules and regulations. Communication was made via phone or email to state agencies or trauma advisory committees to obtain or confirm the absence of guidelines where public data was unavailable. Guideline criteria were abstracted and grouped into domains of Center for Disease Control Field Triage Criteria: pattern/anatomy of injury, vital signs, special populations, and mechanisms of injury. Re-triage criteria were summarized across states using median and interquartile ranges for continuous data and frequencies for categorical data. Demographic data of states with and without re-triage guidelines were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Re-triage guidelines were identified for 22 of 50 states (44%). Common anatomy of injury criteria included head trauma (91% of states with guidelines), spinal cord injury (82%), chest injury (77%), and pelvic injury (73%). Common vital signs criteria included Glasgow Coma Score (91% of states) ranging from 8 to 14, systolic blood pressure (36%) ranging from 90 to 100 mm Hg, and respiratory rate (23%) with all using 10 respirations/minute. Common special populations criteria included mechanical ventilation (73% of states), age (68%) ranging from <2 or >60 years, cardiac disease (59%), and pregnancy (55%). No significant demographic differences were found between states with versus without re-triage guidelines. CONCLUSION: A minority of US states have re-triage guidelines. Characterizing existing criteria can inform future guideline development.

Defining conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication in an open surgical intensive care unit: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Poor interdisciplinary care team communication has been associated with increased mortality. The study aimed to define conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication. DESIGN: An observational cross-sectional qualitative study. SETTING: A surgical intensive care unit in a large, urban, academic referral medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: A total 6 interviews and 10 focus groups from February to June 2021 (N=33) were performed. Interdisciplinary clinicians who cared for critically ill patients were interviewed. Participants included intensivist, transplant, colorectal, vascular, surgical oncology, trauma faculty surgeons (n=10); emergency medicine, surgery, gynaecology, radiology physicians-in-training (n=6), advanced practice providers (n=5), nurses (n=7), fellows (n=1) and subspecialist clinicians such as respiratory therapists, pharmacists and dieticians (n=4). Audiorecorded content of interviews and focus groups were deidentified and transcribed verbatim. The study team iteratively generated the codebook. All transcripts were independently coded by two team members. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication. RESULTS: We identified five themes relating to conditions for effective interdisciplinary care team communication in our surgical intensive care unit setting: role definition, formal processes, informal communication pathways, hierarchical influences and psychological safety. Participants reported that clear role definition and standardised formal communication processes empowered clinicians to engage in discussions that mitigated hierarchy and facilitated psychological safety. CONCLUSIONS: Standardising communication and creating defined roles in formal processes can promote effective interdisciplinary care team communication by fostering psychological safety.

Defining obstacles to emergency transfer of trauma patients: An evaluation of retriage processes from nontrauma and lower-level Illinois trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Retriage is the emergency transfer of severely injured patients from nontrauma and lower-level trauma centers to higher-level trauma centers. We identified the barriers to retriage at sending centers in a single health system. METHODS: We conducted a failure modes effects and criticality analysis at 4 nontrauma centers and 5 lower-level trauma centers in a single health system. Clinicians from each center described the steps in the trauma assessment and retriage process to create a process map. We used standardized scoring to characterize each failure based on frequency, impact on retriage, and prevention safeguards. We ranked each failure using the scores to calculate a risk priority number. RESULTS: We identified 26 steps and 93 failures. The highest-risk failure was refusal by higher-level trauma centers (receiving hospitals) to accept a patient. The most critical failures in the retriage process based on total risk, frequency, and safeguard scores were (1) refusal from a receiving higher-level trauma center to accept a patient (risk priority number = 191), (2) delay in a sending center's consultant examination of a patient in the emergency department (risk priority number = 177), and (3) delay in receiving hospital's consultant calling back (risk priority number = 177). CONCLUSION: We identified (1) addressing obstacles to determining clinical indications for retriage and (2) identifying receiving level I trauma centers who would accept the patient as opportunities to increase timely retriage. Establishing clear clinical indications for retriage that sending and receiving hospitals agree on represents an opportunity for intervention that could improve the retriage of injured patients.