Enhancing informed consent through multimedia tools in pediatric spinal surgery: a comprehensive review.

Pediatric spine surgery is a high complexity procedure that can carry risks ranging from pain to neurological damage, and even death. This comprehensive mini review explores current best practice obtaining valid and meaningful informed consent (IC) prior to pediatric spinal surgery, including modalities that support effective comprehension and understanding. An evaluation of the literature was performed to explore understanding of surgical IC by patients or their guardians and the role of multimedia tools as a possible facilitator. The evidence discussed throughout this review, based on legal and ethical perspectives, reveals challenges faced by patients and guardians in achieving comprehension and understanding, especially when facing stressful medical situations. In this context, the introduction of multimedia tools emerges as a patient-centered strategy to help improve comprehension and decrease pre-operative uncertainty. This review highlights the need for a tailored approach in obtaining IC for pediatric patients and suggests a potential role of shared decision-making (SDM) in the surgical discussion process.

Patient navigation programs in Alberta, Canada: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is a complex intervention that has garnered substantial interest and investment across Canada. We conducted an environmental scan to understand the landscape of patient navigation programs within the health care system in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We included patient navigation programs within Alberta Health Services (AHS) and Alberta's Primary Care Networks (PCNs). Key informants were asked in October 2016 to identify existing programs and their corresponding program contacts. These program contacts were invited to complete a telephone-based survey from October 2016 to July 2017, to provide program descriptions and eligibility criteria, and to identify gaps in navigation. Programs were included if they engaged patients on an individual basis, and either facilitated continuity of care or promoted patient and family empowerment. We tabulated results and calculated summary statistics for program characteristics. RESULTS: Ninety-five potentially eligible programs were identified by key informants. The response rate to the study survey was 73% (n = 69). After excluding programs not meeting inclusion criteria, we included a total of 58 programs in the study: 43 AHS programs and 15 PCN programs. Nearly all programs (93%, n = 54) delivered navigation via an individual acting as a navigator. A minority of programs also included nonnavigator components, such as Web-based resources (7%, n = 4) and process or structural changes to facilitate navigation (22%, n = 13). Certain patient subgroups were particularly well-served by patient navigation; these included patients with cancer, substance use disorders or mental health concerns, and pediatric patients. Gaps identified in navigation fell under 4 domains: awareness, resources, geographic distribution and integration. INTERPRETATION: Patient navigation programs are common and have extended beyond cancer care, from which the construct originated; however, gaps include a lack of awareness and inequitable access to the programs. These findings will be of interest to those developing and implementing patient navigation interventions in Alberta and other jurisdictions.

Barriers to goals of care discussions with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families: a multicenter survey of clinicians.

IMPORTANCE: Seriously ill hospitalized patients have identified communication and decision making about goals of care as high priorities for quality improvement in end-of-life care. Interventions to improve care are more likely to succeed if tailored to existing barriers. OBJECTIVE: To determine, from the perspective of hospital-based clinicians, (1) barriers impeding communication and decision making about goals of care with seriously ill hospitalized patients and their families and (2) their own willingness and the acceptability for other clinicians to engage in this process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter survey of medical teaching units of nurses, internal medicine residents, and staff physicians from participating units at 13 university-based hospitals from 5 Canadian provinces. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Importance of 21 barriers to goals of care discussions rated on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important). RESULTS: Between September 2012 and March 2013, questionnaires were returned by 1256 of 1617 eligible clinicians, for an overall response rate of 77.7% (512 of 646 nurses [79.3%], 484 of 634 residents [76.3%], 260 of 337 staff physicians [77.2%]). The following family member-related and patient-related factors were consistently identified by all 3 clinician groups as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions: family members' or patients' difficulty accepting a poor prognosis (mean [SD] score, 5.8 [1.2] and 5.6 [1.3], respectively), family members' or patients' difficulty understanding the limitations and complications of life-sustaining treatments (5.8 [1.2] for both groups), disagreement among family members about goals of care (5.8 [1.2]), and patients' incapacity to make goals of care decisions (5.6 [1.2]). Clinicians perceived their own skills and system factors as less important barriers. Participants viewed it as acceptable for all clinician groups to engage in goals of care discussions-including a role for advance practice nurses, nurses, and social workers to initiate goals of care discussions and be a decision coach. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital-based clinicians perceive family member-related and patient-related factors as the most important barriers to goals of care discussions. All health care professionals were viewed as playing important roles in addressing goals of care. These findings can inform the design of future interventions to improve communication and decision making about goals of care.

"Who writes what?" Using written comments in team-based assessment to better understand medical student performance: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Observation of the performance of medical students in the clinical environment is a key part of assessment and learning. To date, few authors have examined written comments provided to students and considered what aspects of observed performance they represent. The aim of this study was to examine the quantity and quality of written comments provided to medical students by different assessors using a team-based model of assessment, and to determine the aspects of medical student performance on which different assessors provide comments. METHODS: Medical students on a 7-week General Surgery & Anesthesiology clerkship received written comments on 'Areas of Excellence' and 'Areas for Improvement' from physicians, residents, nurses, patients, peers and administrators. Mixed-methods were used to analyze the quality and quantity of comments provided and to generate a conceptual framework of observed student performance. RESULTS: 1,068 assessors and 127 peers provided 2,988 written comments for 127 students, a median of 188 words per student divided into 26 "Areas of Excellence" and 5 "Areas for Improvement". Physicians provided the most comments (918), followed by patients (692) and peers (586); administrators provided the fewest (91). The conceptual framework generated contained four major domains: 'Student as Physician-in-Training', 'Student as Learner', 'Student as Team Member', and 'Student as Person.' CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of observed medical student performance is recorded in written comments provided by members of the surgical healthcare team. Different groups of assessors provide comments on different aspects of student performance, suggesting that comments provided from a single viewpoint may potentially under-represent or overlook some areas of student performance. We hope that the framework presented here can serve as a basis to better understand what medical students do every day, and how they are perceived by those with whom they work.